Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ESSEX COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL GENERAL POWERS BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

SWANSEA CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Read a Second time and committed.

BLACKBURN CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

CUMBERLAND COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

PORT OF TYNE BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday.

STOKE-ON-TRENT CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

TORBAY CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

WHITEHAVEN HARBOUR BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

BOLTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Tuesday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — PUBLIC BUILDING AND WORKS

Construction Industry

Mrs. Reéne Short: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works if he will make a statement about his recent discussions with leaders of the construction industry.

Mr. Eyre: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make a statement on his meeting with representatives of the building industry and the architectural profession regarding the state of trade in the industry.

Mr. Christopher Ward: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from architects regarding the current level of new commissions for building work; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Heffer: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what recent discussions he has had with trade unions and employers' bodies and other bodies concerned regarding the high level of unemployment in the construction industry; and what proposals he has to alleviate the situation.

The Minister of Public Building and Works (Mr. John Silkin): I have had regular discussions with representatives of the industry, and at the meetings held on 22nd January the Chairman of the E.D.C.s for Building and Civil Engineering and the Presidents of the R.I.B.A. and the National Federation of Building Trades Employers gave me their views on the present state of the building industry. I am considering their advice with my colleagues.

Mrs. Short: My right hon. Friend has not given the House any information at all. Is he aware that a large number of hon. Members share the concern of the building industry about the present state of the industry and the fact that the building materials producers are working to only about half their capacity? Is he further aware that by 1974 nearly 80 of the larger municipal corporations will

have stopped building? As long ago as 1967 I proposed to his predecessor that a national building corporation should be started. Why has no action been taken on this?

Mr. Silkin: There are a number of questions here. I thought that I had answered the original one. Obviously, the state of the building industry is a matter of concern to the Minister, and that was precisely why I called the representatives of the industry in to see me.
In reply to the other points raised by my hon. Friend, I have on several occasions been asked about a national building corporation or a State building corporation, and I have always said that if any hon. Member is interested in this way of dealing with the situation, perhaps he would make representations.

Mrs. Short: We have.

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Lady may have made representations to my predecessors three or four years ago, but she has never made any to me.

Mrs. Short: Read the Report of the Estimates Committee.

Mr. Eyre: Is the Minister aware that the industry and the profession can no longer be put off by expressions of sympathy, and that they need immediate positive action, such as the removal of selective employment tax and the easing of credit terms, to get them out of what threatens to be the worst depression affecting the industry since the 1930s?

Mr. Silkin: These were among the points made by members of the various professions who saw me, though not by the architects, with whom the hon. Gentleman's Question was concerned. Of course one is aware of the degree of concern in the industry, but the peak of building at this moment throughout the industry is considerably more than it was at the time when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in control of our destiny.

Mr. Christopher Ward: Is the Minister aware that the architects' latest quarterly inquiry showed a record slump in new commissions, which may be reflected in building activities 18 months hence? How many more indications of a slump does he require to jerk him out of his complacency?

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that I have been complacent in this matter because, as I said—perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not hear me—it was I who called the leaders of the industry to see me. The architects, with whom I have great sympathy, put their point of view very clearly. Nevertheless, it is a patchy future for them. In some regions the figures are holding very well; it is mainly the London-based offices which appear to be feeling a drop in commissions at the moment.

Mr. Heffer: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, with 125,000 building operatives out of work, 5,500 of them on Merseyside alone, this is a most serious crisis in the building industry? One-fifth of our total unemployed are concentrated in the building industry. Does there not need to be drastic action on the part of the Government, and will my right hon. Friend, with whom I sympathise, inform the Treasury that action must be taken, and taken soon, to overcome this serious problem?

Mr. Silkin: I share my hon. Friend's concern about the unemployment figures. This was one of the factors which led me to call the leaders of the industry together. I am considering with my colleagues the very questions he has raised. As far as I am concerned, there is no complacency and no lack of action by me or my colleagues.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: If the Minister is not complacent why did he not act months ago on the requests made continually from this side, and the other side of the House, that he should go to the Chancellor and ask that house builders should be placed in a priority class? Why leave it too late and let the industry die through letting it down?

Mr. Silkin: In the first place, I do not think that this feeling that I have let the industry down is shared by the industry. I have had regular discussions throughout, and it is well aware that all representations made to me have not been exactly kept to myself. I am bound to say that this new concern of hon. Gentlemen opposite—[Interruption.] Yes, new concern. If hon. Gentlemen will listen to me, I am perfectly happy that our record should be judged, especially when it is realised that in our three worst years of house building we built 150,000 more

houses than hon. Gentlemen opposite during their three best years in office.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that St. Helen's Corporation housing department has in the last financial year paid almost £750,000 in interest rates and that in the next financial year the amount will be over £1 million? Will he concern himself with this problem, and take up with his right hon. Friend the question of the cost of borrowing money for housing, because it is far too expensive?

Mr. Silkin: My right hon. Friend is well aware of the fact that interest rates are high in this country and in almost all industrial countries of the world.

Mrs. Renée Short: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what representations he has received from the National Federation of Builders and Plumbers Merchants regarding the state of trade in the building industry; and what action he has taken.

Mr. John Silkin: I have received a copy of a memorandum from the Federation, and I am meeting it on 12th February.

Mr. Costain: Will the Minister be frank and admit that this memorandum points out that the building industry is suffering the worst depression since the war? Does he further realise that unless he is prepared to persuade the Chancellor of the Exchequer to remove S.E.T., the industry will not accept that he is trying to help it?

Mr. Silkin: The points made by the federation were similar in content to those made by the builders. I think that we are all aware of those points. There has been no lack of publicity of them.
I have said that I am considering the matter with my colleagues. At the same time, it was only courteous and right that I should ask the federation to come and see me.

Mr. Frank Allaun: I do not think that my right hon. Friend is either cheating


or complacent. Whilst the number of completions this year unavoidably will now show a further decrease, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he is aware that the number of starts in the house building industry could be rapidly increased if he successfully persuaded the Chancellor to get the banks to make priority loans for house building purposes?

Mr. Silkin: This was one of the points that the builders made. It is a matter for my right hon. Friend to consider.

Construction Costs

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works, having regard to the 26 per cent. increase in building constructional labour costs now agreed and 11 per cent. to 13 per cent. increase of prices proposed by the British Steel Corporation, what estimate he has made of increased building constructional costs in 1970–72; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. John Silkin: It is not yet possible to make an estimate of increased construction costs up to 1972. The final overall effect of the recent wage agreement will depend on the contribution to increased productivity which the Government and the industry expect the agreement to make. The rise in steel prices will by itself add an average of about one third of 1 per cent. to overall construction costs: the precise increase will depend on the type of work.

Sir G. Nabarro: Has not the Minister neglected to observe that there are 629,000 people out of work, of whom 525,000 are men, more than half of them over 45 years of age, and more than 100,000 from the building and construction industry? Is he aware that if these men leave the industry they will never return? Will not that raise costs enormously, and to the tune of 5s. in the £ with these other factors, during the next two years?

Mr. Silkin: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question really follows from his original Question. In any event, I would not agree with him.

Mr. Costain: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this seriously? Does he appreciate—it is no good the Minister laughing—that the industry is in a most difficult situation? Does he not appre-

ciate that my hon. Friend's Question was right on the point? Is he aware that it is no good his saying that one-third of the cost increase is due to an increase in the price of steel, because so little of the house building industry uses steel? Does he realise that apprentices are not joining the industry? Will he take note of what his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) says if he will not believe us on this side of the House?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman should re-read his hon. Friend's Question. He was asking about the increase in building constructional costs as a result of a price increase by the British Steel Corporation. I answered that Question. It amounts to a total of £3 per house, and I would maintain that that is not of very great consequence.

Sir G. Nabarro: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the hopelessly unsatisfactory nature—

Mr. Speaker: Notice must be given in the conventional way.

Sir G. Nabarro: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Central Office Block, Portsmouth Dockyard (Heating and Ventilation)

Mr. Judd: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works on how many occasions between 17th December 1969 and 13th January, 1970, inclusive, the morning temperature in window seats in the typing pool in Room 1231 of the Central Office Block in Portsmouth Dockyard was below 60 degrees Fahrenheit; what is the estimated cost of making good the heating and ventilation of this building; and whether he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Public Building and Works (Mr. Charles Loughlin): The occupying department carried out checks in this block during this period and temperatures were recorded below 70°F on only two occasions. Tubular heaters will, however, be fitted in this room adjacent to the windows in cold areas between heating vents. I am proposing to improve the ventilation of this office block at an approximate cost of £70,000.

Mr. Judd: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he would not agree that the temperatures to which he referred did not apply to the entire room space? Would he not further agree that these intolerable working conditions are another example of inadequate design or inadequate construction, or both, and that a full departmental inquiry ought to be held into the building of this office block so that similar expensive mistakes can be avoided in future?

Mr. Loughlin: I am not sure that there are design faults in this. The temperatures recorded by the staff, which no doubt prompted my hon. Friend's Question, were temperature readings taken within 18 inches of the windows. I appreciate that there are bound to be variations in temperature in a room. All I can say is that we are looking at the problem and will do whatever we possibly can to ensure that the staff have reasonable working conditions.

Underground Services, Building Sites (Common Trench Lay-Outs)

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will take steps to encourage the adoption of common trench layouts for the installation of utility services to building sites in order to avoid repeated inconvenience to the public.

Mr. Loughlin: A major publicity campaign is in progress following the publication in 1969 of my Ministry's two Bulletins on Co-ordination of Underground Services on Building Sites.

Mr. Archer: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, and appreciating that to a great extent this is in the hands of the local authorities, might I ask him if he will emphasise to them that this is an area in which a little planning and forethought can spare the public a great deal of danger and frustration?

Mr. Loughlin: I certainly take my hon. Friend's point. I go a bit further and say that if we could get local authorities and others thinking in terms of the co-ordination of underground services we should save a lot of money. We are examining inter-departmentally the drafting of a letter to local authorities to try

to stimulate some interest in this worthwhile project.

Mr. W. Baxter: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is not just the responsibility of the local authorities, and that some of the greatest problems arise through the activities of electricity boards, gas undertakings, telephone exchanges and water undertakings? Is he aware that local authorities often try to get the co-operation of these bodies? Is he further aware that a letter to local authorities will not be sufficient but that some real action is required from the Minister?

Mr. Loughlin: I have opened a number of conferences to which representatives of not only local authorities and the building industry but the allied services to which the hon. Member refers have been invited. I appreciate that very often local authorities have some difficulty with organisations supplying services. On the other hand, local authorities can sometimes be the focal point upon which the whole operation can be co-ordinated.

Long-term Building Forecasts

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what estimate he has made of the extra staff required by his Department to carry out recommendation 3 c of the Phelps Brown Committee, namely, that long-term building forecasts should be prepared for the regions in order to make for more stable conditions in the building and construction industry.

Mr. John Silkin: My existing staff are adequate for this task.

Mr. Boyden: Then why is it not carried out? Surely my right hon. Friend will agree that if this purely administrative plan were implemented, it would very much ease out the wild fluctuations in the building industries and the building materials industries and help correct their present difficulties?

Mr. Silkin: Consideration of regional prospects has always been a function of the regional joint advisory committees of my Ministry. We are reviewing the arrangements with the aim of achieving greater uniformity in the methods of forecasting adopted by the individual regions.

Whitehall Redevelopment (Public Inquiry)

Mr. Hordern: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will now hold a public inquiry into the proposals for Richmond Terrace.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will set up a public inquiry into the proposed redevelopment of Whitehall which involves the destruction of Scotland Yard and Richmond Terrace.

Mr. John Silkin: I am considering public reaction to the proposals for this site, which have recently been exhibited, and it is hoped to make a further announcement to the House very shortly.

Mr. Hordern: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any cost-benefit or other analysis has been made of the proposals to house 4,000 civil servants on the site of Richmond Terrace, and will he commission an independent inquiry to look into those proposals and report separately?

Mr. Silkin: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the whole question has been gone into thoroughly, and it will not be very long before I am in a position to make a further announcement. In view of that, I hope that he will not press me too hard at this moment.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is the Minister prepared to say whether he is considering a planning inquiry commission as set out in the 1966 Act?

Mr. Silkin: It is a later Act than that. I think that it is the Housing Act, 1968. However, I do not think that it would help if I were to answer that question today.

Mr. Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that much of Richmond Terrace is now slum property and represents a disgraceful waste of valuable space in the heart of the Commonwealth? Will he take steps to pull down the place as soon as possible?

Mr. Silkin: That rather shows the difficulties for a Minister who wishes to make a decision of this sort. There are so many conflicting views upon it.

St. James's Park (Restaurant)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when the new restaurant will he opened to the public in St. James's Park.

Mr. Loughlin: On Monday week, 23rd February. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the opening ceremony will be performed by Mrs. Harold Wilson.

Mr. Lewis: May I congratulate the Ministry on two counts? Doubtless the Prime Minister's wife will celebrate this. The first count is that at last the Ministry has managed both to begin and to finish one small building. The second count concerns the pleasing aspect of the new restaurant. I hope that the identity of the architect will be made known. It is a very pleasant building, and some very welcome amenities will become available when it is opened.

Mr. Loughlin: I am not too sure about the hon. Gentleman's first congratulation. However, if he cares to go along, it will be one of those occasions when he can have his cake and eat it.

Site (Westminister)

Mr. Biggs-Davison: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works to whom the site in the City of Westminster, formerly intended for a new Colonial Office, has been leased; for how long, for how much, and on what conditions; and what is to be the future development.

Mr. John Silkin: Most of the site is now occupied by National Car Parks Ltd. on a six-monthly basis. A comprehensive redevelopment, to provide a Government Conference Centre and new Headquarters for the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and the Institution of Civil Engineers, which own buildings to the north, is under consideration.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that over the years the site has been put to the best and most profitable use?

Mr. Silkin: As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, the site was the subject of a public inquiry. The Martin Plan of 1965 had advised against offices and in favour of a building of national or international importance providing conference


and other facilities for the Government. I cannot help feeling that, as matters have turned out, bearing in mind that this is a subject which goes back over some years under successive Governments, we shall be providing what the centre of London badly needs, which is accommodation for conferences. Therefore, in that sense, I am certain that the best use has been made of it.

Palace of Westminster (Disabled Visitors)

Mr. John Page: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will make an appreciation of the accessibility of the public parts of the Palace of Westminster to those using wheel-chairs, make recommendations and issue a simple route plan, to include the siting of suitable sanitary facilities, to assist disabled visitors and those who are guiding them.

Mr. Loughlin: Yes, although I should like to make it clear that the authorities of the House already take special care to ensure that invalids in wheel-chairs visiting the Palace of Westminster are afforded all possible assistance, including the use of the lifts to reach all the main public parts on the Principal floor. The suggestion of a route plan is for the authorities of the House to consider, and I will invite their attention to it.

Mr. Page: While I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's reply of "Yes", it does not take us very far. Is he aware that disabled people in wheel chairs want to live as normal a life as possible? Will he take further steps with a view to making access to parts of the House more easily available to them?

Mr. Loughlin: I think that the hon. Gentleman has forgotten his Question, which asks whether I will make an appreciation of the accessibility to the public parts of the Palace of Westminster. I said "Yes, Sir"; in other words, I undertake to make an appreciation with a view to assisting, as far as possible, people who are unfortunate enough to be invalids to get into this House.

Mr. Maclennan: While I recognise the special needs of the disabled in this respect, will my hon. Friend acknowledge that there are many hon. Members who are not disabled, yet who find the House inaccessible to them, are forced to have

their rooms at considerable distances from the House, and cast particularly interested glances at the facilities at the other end of the building?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is wide of the original Question.

Mr. Loughlin: In a matter of this kind, I think that we should concentrate our attention on trying to assist those people who experience difficulty in getting into this House.

Construction Industry (Output)

Mr. Speed: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works by how much the output of the construction industries, measured at constant 1963 prices, declined in 1969; and to what factors he attributes that decline.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether, taking 1963 as equalling 100, he will give the figures of the index of production of all construction work, seasonally adjusted, of the third quarter of 1959 and the equivalent figures for 1964 and 1969.

Mr. John Silkin: Information for the full year 1969 is not yet complete, but, taking 1963 as 100, the indices of total construction output for the third quarters are 1959, 89; 1964, 111; and 1969, 118.

Mr. Speed: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that if, as appears likely, there has been a decline in constant prices in 1969 compared with 1968, this is the first such decline since 1951? Is it not apparent that his predecessor was grossly optimistic in his forecast to the House on 3rd December, 1968?

Mr. Silkin: The figures will be available in any event at the end of February. I derive some amusement from the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "decline" in his original Question. A decline would bring us almost to the low level reached when right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were in charge, and that is not what has happened.

Mr. Baker: Do not the figures show that growth in the output of the construction industry runs at about 1 per cent. a year under Socialism whereas it is about 5 per cent. a year under Conservatism? What does the Minister intend to do about it?

Mr. Sillkin: It does not show anything of the sort.

Mr. Ashton: Has my right hon. Friend any forecast of what construction output would be if right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite abolished housing subsidies, as apparently was threatened at the Selsdon Park conference?

Mr. Silkin: I have not. It is bad enough trying to answer for the Opposition, without going into the future as well. At a time of housing shortage, such as after the passing of the Tory Rent Act of 1957, when a record of evictions was established by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, their figure was 254,000 in the year.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Is it not time that the right hon. Gentleman stopped cheating the House, as he did on the last occasion on which he was asked this question, by taking refuge in current price figures of output, which are totally meaningless? Is it not time that he took off his blinkers and realised how serious the situation is in the construction industry? Will he not get down to doing something about it?

Mr. Silken: I am replying to Questions as they are asked me. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to ask me Questions, he is entitled to do so at any time.

Agrément Board

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how the work of the Agrément Board is progressing.

Mr. Loughlin: The board has made good progress in increasing the rate at which agrément certificates are issued: three in 1967, 30 in 1969. I hope that designers will, as a matter of course, specify certificated new products in preference to un-certificated ones, and that manufacturers will recognise the acquisition of an agrément certificate to be an essential part of the promotion of a new product.

Mr. Boyden: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the progress of the board. Has it not helped to increase the efficiency and productivity of the building industry, which the party opposite does not recognise, and has it not also helped to increase exports of building materials?

Mr. Loughlin: Any system of testing of materials and component parts is bound to improve our chances in the export market. But I think that it goes further. If we can get an increase in the number of applications for testings from manufacturers and can usefully complete 100 a year, I think it would improve the design and the construction of buildings in the future.

British Standard Time

Mr. Speed: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what surveys he has carried out into the effect on productivity on Government contracts of British Standard Time during the darkest month of the year; and what have been the findings of those studies.

Mr. John Silkin: None, Sir.

Mr. Speed: Is it not a proven fact that B.S.T. raises builders' costs and reduces productivity? Is it not time that this unnecessary and unpopular imposition was removed?

Mr. Silkin: I think the hon. Gentleman realises that there has been a two-year experimental period and that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be considering all relevant points in connection with the economy and the country as a whole at the correct time. But the Ministry has asked the construction industry to provide all its statistical information. This will be presented initially to the National Consultative Council in March and subsequently to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

Mr. Heller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently in Strasbourg I discovered that it is light at 8 o'clock in the morning? Yet we were informed that it was important to have British Standard Time to bring us into line with European time. Is it not important that we reconsider this whole matter? It has caused a great deal of difficulty in the building industry, and it ought to be removed at the earliest possible moment.

Mr. Silkin: This is one of the many points for and against which my right hon. Friend will be considering. But I take it that I carry my hon. Friend with me when I say that even if we believe and accept that it harms the building industry to have British Standard Time,


this is not necessarily the end of the story, because every part of the nation's economy must be considered at the same time.

Building Contractors (Departmental Forms)

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress he has made since the month of December, 1968, in minimising the duplication of departmental forms sent to building contractors asking for statistical information; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Loughlin: A general change is in progress toward a unified system of governmental statistics, including the collection and processing of statistics by the Business Statistics Office. Discussions with the building materials industries started last year, and negotiations with the contractors' organisations will follow this year.

Mr. Crouch: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing scepticism in the industry about the worth-whileness of all this information being collected by three Government Departments? Does the Parliamentary Secretary think that it is worth while in getting the industry anywhere?

Mr. Loughlin: We must face the fact that certain statistics have to be collated. It is desirable to have a system whereby there is the minimum degree of effort on the part of the industry in supplying the required information. This is what we are aiming at now. There may be duplications, but when we amend forms of this kind we consult the interests concerned so that we can eliminate duplication as far as possible. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that I want to see the minimum of effort expended on obtaining this information. If he has any particular information that he would like to give to me, he can either send it or discuss it with me.

Economic Development Committee for Building

Mr. Crouch: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he next proposes to attend a meeting of the Economic Development Committee for Building.

Mr. John Silkin: I have been invited to the Economic Development Committee for Building meeting on 27th April.

Mr. Crouch: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that 10 months ago the Economic Development Committee for Building predicted an increase last year of 3 per cent. and that recently it had to revise it to a fall of 2 per cent.? Does he not think that it is urgent that he should consult with the committee to see that its predictions are nearer the target?

Mr. Silkin: It is very useful for me to be made aware of everything that the committee is considering. I have promised to make myself available whenever it should wish to see me. It has so asked, and I shall be happy to attend on 27th April. It is true that there was a change in forecast, but this happens in all industries and to all groups of people; they revise as they come nearer to the facts.

Labour-only Sub-contracting

Mr. Costain: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he will introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Report of the Phelps Brown Committee on labour-only sub-contracting.

Captain W. Elliot: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he now proposes to implement the Phelps Brown Report's recommendations on self-employed men in the building industry.

Mr. Heffer: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works when he intends to introduce legislation to deal with the problem of labour-only subcontracting.

Mr. John Silkin: I have invited both sides of the industry to consult with me on the main measures I intend to incorporate in forthcoming legislation.

Mr. Costain: If the Bill is as urgent as we understood from the Gracious Speech, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman appreciates that on 12th November he promised the House that he would have these consultations? Why have they not already taken place?

Mr. Silkin: My memory may be at fault, but I do not think that the hon.


Gentleman is right when he says that I promised consultations. I think that I promised proposals as soon as possible. I believe that I am now able to put forward definitive proposals, but it is natural that I should want to discuss them with both sides of industry.

Captain Elliot: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to present the Bill to Parliament before Easter? Does he recall that in October the Prime Minister said that it was necessary? The building industry is now beginning to wonder whether it is coming along at all in this Session.

Mr. Silkin: Perhaps I might reassure the hon. Gentleman before I reassure the building industry, which I shall be seeing early in the week after next. The Bill will be coming forward, and I shall be discussing proposals with the industry.

Mr. Heifer: As it is now four and a half months since we were promised in the Queen's Speech that this legislation would come in and as labour-only subcontracting is still a growing problem in the building industry, may I ask my right hon. Friend to indicate when precisely the consultations are to take place and when we shall have the legislation before us?

Mr. Silkin: The consultations will be early in the week after next. Obviously I will inform the House as soon as possible.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Concerning this promised Bill which was so urgently needed, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that any further increase in S.E.T. on the construction industry will be intolerable anyway, but that it would be more intolerable and, indeed, an outrage if it happened before the House had a chance to discuss the Bill which very much affects the situation?

Mr. Silkin: I shall pass on the hon. Gentleman's comments to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I would regard my measures as radical enough to please my hon. Friend and I hope not too radical for him.

Construction Industry (Selective Employment Tax)

Mr. Donald Williams: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works

what is the present annual cost to the construction industry of the selective employment tax.

Mr. John Silkin: About £155 million is paid by the construction industry.

Mr. Williams: Would the Minister not agree that with these charges, taxes, levies and duties, it is costing about £6 per man per week to get him on to the site and that as a result there has been a reduction in output in the industry and an increase in the number of self-employed?

Mr. Silkin: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that before S.E.T. came into existence in 1966 the number of self-employed people was increasing at the rate of 10,000 a year. The figure in 1966, which I quote from memory, was 175,000. Therefore, we cannot blame S.E.T. totally for the situation. It is certainly not true that S.E.T. accounts for £6 a week.

Mr. Ashton: Will the Minister examine the cost of S.E.T. in terms of the percentage that goes on to building?

Mr. Silkin: Yes, I would say that in a full year it adds a little less than 4 per cent. to construction costs.

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works how many members of his Department he has seconded to give full-time assistance to Professor Reddaway in his inquiry regarding the effect on the construction industry of selective employment tax; and whether they are primarily resident in Cambridge during their secondment, or in London.

Mr. John Silkin: None, Sir.

Miss Anderson: But is the Minister not aware of the urgency of this inquiry? Was it not said in July of last year that additional help was required to give Professor Reddaway a chance to publish his important findings?

Mr. Silkin: Professor Reddaway has a number of staff, and their recruitment and deployment is a matter for him. I am satisfied that he is pursuing his inquiries energetically. He has secured the assistance of a former member of the staff of the Building Research Station, but when he may report is a


matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Heffer: In view of the fact that one quarter of the income from S.E.T. comes from the building industry and that that industry bears one-fifth of the unemployed, is it not time that the whole question of S.E.T. as it affects the building industry was looked at speedily, and, indeed, abolished for that industry?

Mr. Silkin: The question of looking at S.E.T. in the building industry is being pursued, as has been said, by Professor Reddaway. It will be very important and interesting to see the result of that inquiry.

New Constructions (Cost)

Mr. Grant: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works whether he will give the annual average figures for the index of the cost of new construction, taking 1963 as equally 100, for 1960, and the equivalent figures for 1964 and 1968.

Mr. John Silkin: Ninety-one in 1960, 102 in 1964 and 118 in 1968.

Mr. Grant: Is it not a fact that construction costs have risen far more sharply in the first four years of Labour Government than they did in the last four years of Conservative Government, and that if one were to take the years 1959 and 1969 the position would be even more unfavourable to the Government?

Mr. Silkin: The difference is the marginal one of about 1 per cent., but the hon. Gentleman must also take into account the rather wider perspective and must not be too parochial. The index of construction costs in the United States and in most industrial countries in Europe is greater than, or at the best the same as, in this country.

Direct Labour Force

Miss Harvie Anderson: asked the Minister of Public Building and Works what progress has been made in implementing his decisions regarding the directly employed labour force of his Department, in the light of the Mann Committee Reports and subsequent surveys; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Loughlin: Those needed to operate basic services and to meet special requirements have been identified. The work of the remainder and its cost have been analysed, and the results will be reviewed in due course. Measures recommended by management consultants to increase efficiency are being introduced. Negotiations are proceeding with the trade unions on a possible productivity agreement.

Miss Anderson: Is the basis of the Ministry's policy that where the work on non-security buildings can be done economically this can be undertaken by contractors?

Mr. Loughlin: We are attempting to evaluate the directly employed labour force as against the use of contractors. We shall use the directly employed labour force in certain areas where it is necessary to use it and in all of the instances where it is competitive with contractors.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.S.R. (PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister when he proposes to visit Moscow.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: asked the Prime Minister whether he will now pay an official visit to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) on 5th February.—[Vol. 795, c. 620–21.]

Mr. Marten: As the Prime Minister has not yet arranged to visit Moscow, would he in the meantime do everything to strengthen Anglo-French relations over the gathering crisis in the Middle East about which he has been talking to the Russians?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. Certainly we are in touch with the French Government and our other partners in the four-Power talks.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, apart from the benefit of being seen in high society, these global scurryings really


serve no practical purpose? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Would it not be better and cheaper for the Prime Minister to stay at home with us?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion. I remember that he and some others criticised my visit to Moscow in 1966, which they thought was ill-timed. If they have seen the statements by Senator Mansfield and others in the United States, they will feel that it had an extremely important effect at a dangerous moment in time.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: When the right hon. Gentleman goes to Moscow, will he inquire into the increasing use of selection procedures in the Russian system of education? Will he inquire into whether this resulted from any pledge by Mr. Kosygin that selective schools would be abolished only over his dead body?

The Prime Minister: I have had occasion on more than one visit to the Soviet Union to compare some of their inegalitarian practices with ours. The same is true of certain other countries. However, we cannot afford whatever the Russians may feel they can afford, a basis of selection at the age of 11 which denies an adequate education to three-quarters of the population.

Mr. Fernyhough: Would my right hon. Friend agree that if he were to act on every suggestion made by hon. Members opposite that he should visit certain countries abroad, he would hardly ever be here? There is purpose in their madness because they are very much afraid of the replies they get from him when he is here.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is less than fair to the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who seemed to want me to stay here. It looks as though hon. Members opposite are as divided on this matter as on everything else. If I had taken account of their advice in other matters and had done what they said over the last five years, we would now have a balance of payments deficit of £1,500 million. Also, if I were now to take account of their Selsdon Park thesis, the cost of living would be twice as high.

Mr. Heath: Could the Prime Minister say whether in his letter to Mr. Kosygin he put forward specific British proposals

for implementing the United Nations resolution in order to achieve a settlement in the Middle East, or are the British Government not putting forward specific proposals of their own but agreeing with those put forward by one of the other four powers?

The Prime Minister: There is a later Question on the exchanges with Mr. Kosygin. We have replied in what we feel the House will regard as a constructive way to the dangers which he set out, including our proposals for arms control and our desire to join with them in condemning all breaches of the ceasefire. So far as the four-Power talks are concerned, the British Government will be putting forward our own ideas. We are close to one of the other Powers, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, and I am sure he will agree with that, but we are putting forward our own ideas on some matters which have not been adequately ventilated in the four-Power talks.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICE CONTROL (MINISTERIAL CO-ORDINATION)

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination of Ministers responsible for price control; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Taylor: Is the Prime Minister aware of any period since the Napoleonic wars when prices rose as fast as they are now rising? Having regard to the very real hardship which soaring prices are imposing on lower-paid workers, is not the right hon. Gentleman just a little bit ashamed of having been elected to power on a pledge to control the increase of prices?

The Prime Minister: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's clear dissociation from his party's policy. Since we now understand from the Leader of the Opposition, bearing his electioneering posters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is obvious that hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot take it. Like it or not, they are going to get it.
We see a change in policy on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who now say that they will not cut all taxation but only direct taxation. Indirect taxpayers have been warned. We also have their


V.A.T., levies on food and their desire—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am answering.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must hear both sides.

The Prime Minister: Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like it when they get it back—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]— and they are going to get it from now on. We have also had their vote against controls on rents and their attempt, frustrated only by my hon. Friends, to introduce fees in education.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is not complacent about this.

Sir G. Nabarro: Don't you believe it.

Mr. Brown: Does the Prime Minister realise the need for a massive educational programme in this very sphere? Since the public refuse to believe that earnings have increased at a rate faster than prices, would it not be advantageous to have a readily available single body which could act as a deterrent in view of the activities of unscrupulous shopkeepers who are putting on excessive price increases and sticking up notices blaming the Government?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition and his hon. Friends would wish to take part in any educational programme such as my hon. Friend has in mind. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would no doubt wish to explain why the cost of living last year rose higher in America and Japan—[Interruption.] I am giving the facts—why it rose faster in America, where there was no devaluation, in France, Ireland, the Netherlands and in Portugal, most of which are following the economic policies being advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Heath: As part of the educational programme on which the Prime Minister has now embarked at his hon. Friend's invitation, would he explain to the country that while he and his colleagues promised that the standard of living would increase by 25 per cent., as a result of their policies the cost of living has gone up by 24·8 per cent.? Would the right hon. Gentleman go further and break that figure down by saying how much of the 24·8 per cent. increase in

prices was due to deliberate Government policy on taxation, how much was due to inadvertent policies such as devaluation and how much prices have gone up just because the Government could not help it?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, certainly. In fact, the cost of living record of Labour compares more than favourably with the record of hon. Gentlemen opposite—[Laughter.]—because from 1961 they had the advantage of a very big fall in world prices. They frittered that away and left us with a balance of payments deficit—[Interruption.]—which was substantial. The Leader of the Opposition has a research department and can look up the figures. Perhaps he will give them to the House when he has done that exercise.
As to the three components to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, the first being Government policy on taxation—

Mr. Heath: Deliberate policy.

The Prime Minister: We understand that the right hon. Gentleman has now announced deliberate Tory policy on indirect taxation—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise helps nobody.

The Prime Minister: —deliberate Tory policy on indirect taxation which would mean a gratuitous increase above what would be necessary on world prices and other factors. We have asked the right hon. Gentleman for some facts about that. Perhaps he will give them to us some time.
To answer the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question about devaluation, which inevitably increased prices somewhat—

Mr. Heath: But not the £ in one's pocket!

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has asked questions about the £ in one's pocket before. I see that he is still using it in his party propaganda. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I now ask him to put in his party propaganda what I said in that broadcast, which was that prices would rise. I challenge him to put that in his party posters and advertising, and if he does not do it he


will devalue himself to the same level—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must be fair. It heard the question. It must hear the answer.

The Prime Minister: Hon. Gentlemen opposite think that they can have it all their own way. They do not like it when they get it back, and they are going to get it back.
My answer to the right hon. Gentleman is that he announced a prescription last week which would result in further increases in the cost of living, which we shall oppose.

Mr. Shinwell: Has not my right hon. Friend omitted to mention one item of Tory policy which has suddenly emerged; namely, the proposal by a very prominent Member of the party opposite—it was not mentioned at the Selsdon Park conference of the Shadow Cabinet—that youthful offenders and others, and particularly those who engage in demonstrations and intervene in sporting events, should be placed in the stocks? Are not hon. Gentlemen opposite already returning to the Middle Ages?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Question relates to price control.

The Prime Minister: With respect to my right hon. Friend, I agree that the use of the stocks does not fall within the co-ordinating powers of Ministers concerned with prices. [Interruption.] I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that we have no proposals on the point mentioned by my right hon. Friend. On the other hand, we have certain powers, which hon. Gentlemen opposite voted against, in respect of price control.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER (SPEECH)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech about the economy at Swansea on 10th January.

The Prime Minister: As I said in reply to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) on 20th January, I did so on 13th January.—[Vol. 794, c. 113.]

Mr. Blaker: Is the right hon. Gentleman sure that the copy in the Library contains the complete text of that speech? Is he aware that I could not find the bit about devaluation and the level of unemployment?

The Prime Minister: We have just discussed that. In any event, as the hon. Gentleman seems to have read the copy in the Library, I cannot understand why he tabled a Question asking me to place one there. If he knows one is there, there seems no point in his asking me to put one there. I would refer him, if he wants the reference, to a large number of speeches that have been made dealing with this subject.

Mr. Peyton: So that we may properly appreciate the level of the Prime Minister's thinking, could we have the one about the housemaids as well?

The Prime Minister: The text of the speech which I think the hon. Gentleman has in mind is already in the Library. We are prepared to debate with hon. Gentlemen opposite the implications of a free-for-all in housing, with all that that would mean in terms of the Rent Act and so on, and a free-for-all in the social services, which would mean a return to pre-Beveridge.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those sections of his speech at Swansea when he pointed to the need to protect our visual inheritance and the growing dangers of pollution? He clearly recognises that problem because he spelled it out in his speech. Would he therefore consider strengthening the alkaline inspectorate, which I understand is very much over-stretched?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. This is a subject on which we have not only made speeches but have taken action. I noticed that the party opposite did not even refer to it following the Selsdon Park meeting—or hon. Members opposite were not reported as having done so and that is inconceivable with the Tory Press as it is. As to pollution of the countryside, in my Swansea speech I referred to the fact that from 1960 to 1964 the Tory Government provided plans for site clearance of derelict areas of just 8 acres in four years—[An HON. MEMBER: "In Wales."]—in Wales—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] These are the official published


figures—[Interruption.] It may be 8½ acres. But since 1966, under our Act, schemes ranking for grant have been approved for 1,400 acres.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: On a point of order. With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that once again we have got only as far as Question No. Q4 to the Prime Minister.
This question was originally raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), who has consistently pressed the matter. With great respect—always with respect—is it not a fact that today the Prime Minister spent 75 per cent. of his time avoiding answering Questions—[Interruption.] Kennel-up there!

Hon. Members: Speak up!

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: The Prime Minister spent at least 75 per cent. of his time attacking Conservative Party policy instead of answering Questions. Can we do nothing about this?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and gallant Member is informing the House for the second time that he does not like Answers by the Prime Minister. That is not unusual in the history of the British Parliament in relation to any Prime Minister and any Opposition protester.

Sir W. Bromley-Davenport: Further to that point of order. Personally, I thoroughly enjoy the Prime Minister's Answers. It is not that I mind what he says, because there is little of any value in it, but we do mind that we cannot have more Questions answered.

Hon. Members: Sit down!

Mr. Speaker: I am conscious of the point made by the hon. and gallant Member.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. A Minister answers Questions in the way in which he likes. [An HON. MEMBER: "He has not answered."] This is a matter for a Minister.

Mr. Shinwell: Further to the point of order. Is there any reason why there should be any hub-bub when the hon. and gallant Member for Knutsford (Sir W. Bromley-Davenport) intervenes? Is he not the true representative of the Tory Party?

Mr. Speaker: That is a comment, not a point of order.

MISS RANJAN VAID (ENTRY INTO UNITED KINGDOM)

Sir Dingle Foot: Sir Dingle Foot (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether Miss Ranjan Vaid, who was refused permission to re-enter Kenya, will now be permitted to enter and remain in the United Kingdom.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. James Callaghan): Miss Vaid applied to the British High Commission in Nairobi for permission to settle in the United Kingdom and was advised that her circumstances did not warrant the immediate grant of a special voucher, and that her name would be put on the waiting list. She nevertheless travelled here via Germany without the necessary document that would have entitled her to land and was refused admission.
Those who encouraged or advised her to try and jump the queue bear the responsibility for her present plight.
I have given consideration to this matter this morning. In view of the position in which she now finds herself, I am ready exceptionally to allow her to enter this country for a short period of three months. This will give her time to regularise her affairs.

Sir Dingle Foot: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, which, so far as it goes, will be welcome to many hon. Members, I wish to put to him three further questions.
First, would it not have been better if this decision had been taken in the first place and this lady had not been compelled to make the return journey across two continents?
Secondly, why did the British Consul in Frankfurt, early this morning, think it necessary to intervene to prevent her onward flight from Frankfurt to London?
Thirdly, will my right hon. Friend give similar consideration in cases of other Kenyan Asians who are also Her Majesty's subjects and holders of British passports and who arrive at our shores?

Mr. Callaghan: On the first question, it would certainly have led to a breakdown of the whole system of orderly control of entry to this country if this lady had been permitted to land without permission and without the necessary documents. The House gave its decision on this matter by an overwhelming majority two years ago. The Act has worked well and stopped the panic rush that was taking place before. I cannot make it easy for those who try to jump the queue.
As to what happened in Frankfurt this morning, I understand that Miss Vaid's advisers approached the British Consul, but, as I have had only two hours' notice of this question, I am not able at this stage to say authoritatively what passed between them.
Thirdly, I certainly give no assurance about other Kenyan Asians who try to jump the queue in this manner. It would break down the whole system—maybe that is the desire of some people—and if it succeeded it would impede the growth of good race relations in this country. Therefore, we cannot make it easy for people to try to evade the control.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Would my right hon. Friend comment, in the light of his last answer, on the assurance that he gave the House during the passing of the Bill to which he has referred, that if a person were kicked out of his country, as this girl undoubtedly was, that person would be given entry to this country if he or she held a British passport?

Mr. Callaghan: I do not know the authority for my hon. Friend's statement, but my information is directly to the contrary. She was not forced to leave the country and she knew that if she left without an entry voucher she would not be allowed to land here.

Mr. David Steel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is growing in Kenya, and possibly will grow in the future in Uganda, a community of semi-destitute British citizens as a result of the queue policy? How can it improve race relations in this country if we keep

them there until they are thrown out because they have no money and no job rather than allowing them to come here in an orderly manner, when they could still contribute something to the economy?

Mr. Callaghan: This lady was born in India and then went—I think, when she was very young—to Kenya. I understand that she has not expressed any desire to go back to India, but prefers to come to this country. If this is so, I believe that the House was absolutely right in deciding that we should form an orderly queue and admit people at such a rate as would enhance race relations in this country.

Mr. Deedes: While accepting much of what the Home Secretary has said, is there not a new situation in that a United Kingdom passport holder who now leaves Kenya voluntarily may not be permitted to re-enter without a work permit and has no immediate entitlement to come here? If we are to avoid such persons being shuttled backwards and forwards in an unfortunate way, should we not consider this category and whether we can give it some fresh priority within our present limits?

Mr. Callaghan: There is no fresh consideration here at all and I hope that hon. Members will not try to give any comfort to those who argue that there is. Those who are ejected from their country, as this lady was not, are able to go to the High Commission and they get high priority in vouchers available for issue. This lady, having applied to the High Commission, was told that because there was no requirement on her to leave the country she could not get a priority voucher. Therefore, I do not think that it would be proper for us to give fresh consideration to our policy in this matter.
As to the action of the Kenya authorities in relation to her re-entry, my contacts with them and those of my officials show that they have acted absolutely correctly and in accordance with their policy.

Mr. C. Pannell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the view he has advanced today will find a great deal of support on both sides of the House, and that this country should not be at the mercy of unscrupulous people abroad,


or people careless of the habits of this country, who can impose themselves upon us?

Mr. Callaghan: The policies that have been followed have not, generally speaking, been applied with any harshness. They have resulted in another direction in a substantial reduction in the number of people entering this country. I published the figures yesterday, which show a substantial decline. The number of Commonwealth immigrants last year was 36,000, the smallest for many years. Yet no dependant has been denied entry.
I believe that this is the right way to handle these matters, and that we should now turn our attention to ensuring that there is true equality between people of all colours who are already here.

Mr. Thorpe: Surely the Home Secretary is missing the point. The position is that there is a category of British citizens of Asian descent who, because of policies in Kenya and Uganda which I deplore, are increasingly denied employment prospects. Do we have to wait until they are destitute before the Home Secretary will allow them into this country?

Mr. Callaghan: The right hon. Gentleman has deployed his arguments before. A Second Reading was given to the Act, to which he has constantly been opposed, by 372 votes to 62, one of the largest majorities I have seen in the present Parliament. That being so, it seems to me that it is important that the Act should continue to be administered within the spirit of what I said to the House at that time, and it is so being administered.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Does the Secretary of State realise that many hon. Members on this side of the House will endorse both his remarks about queue-jumping and his humanitarian decision in the present case?

Mr. Callaghan: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. It is very difficult. Nobody on either side of the House would like to be in the position of seeing a young woman shuttled to and fro between various countries. I believe that it is in accordance with our traditional practice that we should give her a short

period of time and try to help her to work out her own future if we can.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister. Statement.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (WHITE PAPER)

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the White Paper laid before Parliament today, and now in the Vote Office.
While this, as I have already told the House, deals exclusively with the economic assessment of the cost of British entry to the Communities, on a wide range of assumptions, hon. Members will no doubt wish to study it against the background of the four White Papers published in 1967, dealing with the decision of 2nd May to make application, and the basis of that application; with the legal and constitutional issues; and with the matters relating to the common agricultural policy. The fourth White Paper was the statement of the then Foreign Secretary at the meeting of the Council of Western European Union in July, 1967.
The structure and content of today's White Paper follow the pattern I outlined at Brighton last autumn and announced to Parliament soon after. The estimates and assessments made in 1967 have been recalculated on the basis of more up-to-date information, and they cover, in particular, agriculture, the balance of trade in industrial goods, invisibles and capital movements, and the consequences for each of these which entry into the Communities might have for us, and, in particular, for our balance of payments.
The House will see that the White Paper also sets out the potential implications of membership for the development of our industry, and concludes with an overall economic assessment of the theoretical range of possible costs, in both balance of payments and resource terms, which membership of the Communities could involve.
I have indicated to the House on a number of occasions the difficulties arising from the wide range of assumptions which must be made. Before saying a


word about them I should make it clear that, for reasons the House will understand, the calculations do not allow for what we would hope to achieve in the course of the negotiations, whether in terms of quantities and costs, or in terms of periods for transition and adjustment.
The assumptions that have been made relate in the first instance to the common agricultural policy, and as far as possible reflect the most recent decisions of E.E.C. Ministers: in particular, the summit meeting at The Hague on 1st and 2nd December last year, and the meeting of the Council of Ministers of the Communities ending on 22nd December. Even now we do not have a complete picture of the future shape of the Community's agricultural policy.
Clearly, we had to wait for the outcome of these meetings, as I have told the House more than once, and this was why my earlier hope of being able to lay the White Paper before Christmas was not realised.
But the House will recognise that this is a continuing process. The Ministers of the Six met last Thursday, Friday and Saturday, when the White Paper was already in print, and there will be further meetings which may necessitate revision of the estimates.
Even if this were not so, the House will understand that many of the estimates must be highly speculative. There must, for example, be a wide margin of error arising from any calculations which may be made about the response of British agriculture and industry to changes in prices and tariff levels whose effects cannot be fully felt for a number of years. Hon. Members will realise what margin of error this involves both in the calculations of the agricultural cost, and its wider implications in industrial, commercial and financial matters.
Given the assumptions, we have sought to present, within an inevitably wide range, as full and objective an account of the position on agriculture as is possible. We have, however, found it very difficult to present any meaningful estimates about invisible earnings and capital movements: still more difficult to make any about the long-term industrial consequences, described in the White Paper as the "dynamic effect" of entry, though here many hon. Members will

have studied the report made by the Confederation of British Industry and published by it a few weeks ago.
We have not found it possible to set out figures in quantifying these industrial consequences. It is right that those who are engaged in industry and trade, to whom would fall the responsibility of taking the thousands of day-by-day decisions which entry into the Communities would entail, should judge—as hon. Members will seek to judge—to what extent membership would give industry more opportunity for successful enterprise and expansion.
The White Paper also makes no attempt to estimate the cost to Britain of remaining outside the Communities, if the final result of the negotiations were to produce terms and conditions which the Government, and Parliament, were to regard as unacceptable.
Again, the White Paper does not attempt to deal with the political arguments for entry into the Communities, beyond recalling what was said on this issue in the 1967 White Papers.
Hon. Members will wish to study this document, which I must say right away is lengthy, detailed and heavy going. I am sure, however, that most hon. Members, whatever their views on the issue of British entry, will accept that the figures have been calculated in a completely objective and neutral way. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will be arranging for talks through the usual channels for a full parliamentary debate—

Mr. Dickens: And a vote.

The Prime Minister: —after hon. Members have had adequate time to study the White Paper, and to study the public comment which the White Paper will no doubt generate both in Britain and overseas.
Today is not the time to attempt to draw conclusions in terms of policy from the White Paper. Britain's application for membership has been made and that is not in question. The Governments of the Six have made clear their intention that negotiations will begin in the summer. Until the outcome of those negotiations is known, neither the Government nor Parliament will be in a position to take final decisions. The


negotiations will take place against the background of Britain's economic progress, and particularly of the improvement in our balance of payments and in the strength of sterling. Not only this House but the world outside recognises the sharp contrast of our position today with our position both in 1967 and in the previous negotiations from 1961 to 1963.
These facts create a situation in which Government and Parliament can take their decisions in full confidence that on fair terms we can stand and profit by the far more competitive situation that entry into the Market implies. But equally they create a situation which leaves no one in doubt that should the negotiations not lead to acceptable terms for entry, Britain is and will he strong enough to stand on her own feet outside. This was the target—a position of strength—I set for our economic policies when the House debated these matters in 1967.
The question of entry, what I have called the final decision, does not arise on this White Paper, nor indeed in the debate which will follow. It is in the light of the negotiations which are due to begin in the near future that this decision must be taken. The Government and the House, of course, will recognise that political as well as economic factors are involved. If, when the decision is to be taken, the disadvantages for Britain appear excessive in relation to the benefits for Britain which would flow from British entry, the Government clearly would not propose to Parliament that we should enter the Communities. If, on the other hand, the costs, after negotiations, appear acceptable in relation to the benefits, the Government will recommend entry.
The Government will enter into negotiations resolutely, in good faith, mindful both of British interests and of the advantages of success in the negotiations to all the members of an enlarged community. We have made clear that if the negotiations produce acceptable conditions for British entry we believe that this will be advantageous for Britain, for Europe, and for Europe's voice in the world. Equally, we have made clear that if the conditions which emerge from the negotiations are in the Government's view not acceptable, we can rely on our

own strength outside the Communities. But I repeat what I have said on a number of occasions in the House and outside that this outcome—a failure of the negotiations—would involve a cost for Britain, a cost for Europe, and a diminution of Europe's influence in world affairs.

Mr. Heath: May I thank the Prime Minister for his statement and also for the publication of the White Paper? The Prime Minister has reaffirmed the Government's intention of entering into negotiations and that no decision can be reached until the results of those are known. I do not therefore propose to question him about this White Paper this afternoon. It appears to be a substantial document and we on this side of the House would obviously like to consider it carefully in preparation for the debate in the House.
I have no doubt, as the Prime Minister has said, that there will always be a sustained debate in the country. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he would agree with the hope which I would like to express, that those on whom the public rely to a large extent for guidance in these matters should fairly express the pros and cons of the options set out in the White Paper, as well as the political considerations, which will be taken into account?

The Prime Minister: I would like to thank the right hon. Gentleman for his opening words and to welcome what he said just before he sat down. It is important that this issue should be judged on its merits by all concerned. I expressed the view before the White Paper was published that it would provide adequate pabulum, both for those who oppose entry, who will regard it as confirming their worst fears, and for those who support entry, who will regard it as confirming their best hopes.
It is important that in presenting this document—and all of us here have a responsibility, regardless of the side that we may take on the policy issue—to see that the facts and figures set out therein, even over a wide range of assumptions, are fairly put to the people as a whole.

Mr. Jay: Does my right hon. Friend accept the statement of the Common Market Ministers that the December decisions on the financial regulations on


agriculture are fixed and irreversible and not subject to negotiation by this Government?

The Prime Minister: I take everything said by the Common Market Ministers in the spirit in which it is said. We regard decisions taken about the common agricultural policy as being fixed by them; that is their intention. There are still very important questions for negotiation, not least in the field of agricultural financing.
My right hon. Friend, when he forms his own objective assessment in the light of the White Paper, as I am sure he will do, will also no doubt attempt to make some assessment, which has been beyond the possibility of those who have had the responsibility for this White Paper, of how far, for example within Europe, there may be a desire to get their own prices down because of the degree of surpluses. That is why I say there are so many imponderables—we can only give guidelines, not final conclusions.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he is to be congratulated on his consistency in keeping as many options open at the same time as is possible, apart from a definite commitment to open negotiations? Would he agree that it cannot be emphasised too often that the estimates are purely speculative and, therefore, subject to change, and that, while particular interests may be able to show that they would be disadvantaged in the short term, it will be the job of this House to look at the economic and political position in the overall and in the long term?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has got it about right—there are no options open at all in respect of the decision to open negotiations and to approach them in a determination that they should succeed if the price is acceptable. That is our position. I hope that he was not referring to the wide range of assumptions in the White Paper when he talked about keeping options open, because I think that the House as a whole will feel that this is an honest attempt within some very variable assumptions to present figures to the House.
As to the assumption that if the terms are unacceptable we do not go in, I can-

not imagine that there is a single hon. or right hon. Gentleman who would take a different view.

Sir G. de Freitas: Is it not a fact that the four applicant countries cannot get into the Common Market unless the Six want them and that if the Six want them the Six will seek transitionary financial arrangements to lessen the impact of an expansion from six to ten?

The Prime Minister: I referred to the importance of transitional arrangements and to the final terms. One development the House will have noticed during the period that the White Paper has been under consideration is that the Six, in finalising the agricultural policy, have set for themselves a programme up to 1977—before their own arrangements become definitive and final. They need that period for finalisation even on top of the work they have done in creating a common agricultural policy.
Therefore, there will be a general recognition that if terms acceptable for entry are achieved, those terms must include an adequate period for adjustment and transition, for Britain and the other applicant countries.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: In view of the imprecisions and omissions of the White Paper, extending to the effect of payments under the common agricultural policy in paragraph 44; the adverse effect of the rising prices, which, according to paragraph 76, are only roughly estimated: in view of the reliance on alleged long-term benefits, which, according to paragraph 105, are incapable of statistical calculation; and in view of the failure, admitted in paragraph 106, to calculate the full economic consequences, would the right hon. Gentleman assist the House and the country to the truth of these matters by making available for cross-examination by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen the gentleman who has been responsible for this singularly inadequate document?

The Prime Minister: I should congratulate the right hon. and learned Gentleman on the speed with which he has read this document. I only hope for the sake of his professional clients that he takes a little more time in studying a brief before he gives counsel's opinion.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman ought to have a lawyer.

The Prime Minister: I have one, from the Opposition Front Bench.
When the right hon. and learned Gentleman has had time to apply his considerable mind to this question he will recognise that in each case it would not only have been impossible, but would have been misleading, to try to put quantitative figures on some of the points, indeed, all of the points he has raised. If he takes a different view, I do not think that he will get whatever it is he wants to get by cross-examination. He can make the point very fully in the debate in the House and the Ministers responsible, including myself, who will be taking part in the debate, will attempt to give him as good an answer as we can.
We could have made guesses to deal with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. I think that he would have been very disappointed if we had produced figures less objective than those which we have produced.

Mr. Shinwell: Now that we have been presented with an economic assessment of Britain's entry into the Common Market, and as the Prime Minister has said there will be a full debate in the House, can we be assured, before that debate takes place, that in addition to this economic assessment we will have a political assessment, giving an indication of what is likely to be the attitude of this country because of European policy that may be creating a supranational Government?
May I also ask my right hon. Friend whether, in the preparation of this multi-Departmental document, it ever occurred to him to consult, say, businessmen like Sir George Bolton, or Sir John Hunter, economists like Dr. Balogh and Sir Roy Harrod, or even a merchant banker like Sir Siegmund Warburg, and ascertain their views? Why should we have to depend on a multi-Departmental document which expresses not merely facts, but also opinions?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will feel, when he has studied the document, that he displayed less than his usual standard of fairness in these matters. I noticed that he selected—and I emphasise "selected"

—a number of businessmen who support his case, one at least of whom I know to have been a passionate supporter of entry into Europe over a longe period. Possibly he got the other four right.—[An HON. MEMBER: "He was fair."] Yes, he was fair, four to one.
Nevertheless, I feel that when my hon. Friend studies the document he will find that we take into account the report of the Confederation of British Industry, which no doubt my right hon. Friend will have read, and which covers estimates made throughout C.B.I. membership. We did not, however, attempt to follow the C.B.I. in such quantifying of the trade and industrial advantages as it is convinced of. What we tried to do was to stick to those facts that were demonstrable, on the basis of assumption.
I considered at an early stage whether we should attempt to put in the political arguments, but I believe that the whole House will agree that those for and against are not quantifiable; they are not easily demonstrable. They have to be argued between people taking different points of view. I believe that my right hon. Friend would have been disappointed had I sought to balance some of the considerations, say, agriculture, by a statement on the political side, and would have felt it an unfair statement. Whereas agricultural figures have some validity given the assumptions, the political arguments would not, I would have thought my right hon. Friend would feel, have been very fair. No doubt in a fortnight's time he will be quoting the document in support of the position he has taken over a number of years in this matter.

Mr. Sandys: While obviously at present there are too many uncertain factors to enable us to assess the effect upon our balance of payments, which must necessarily depend upon the outcome of negotiations, does the Prime Minister agree that the Six have every interest in the maintenance of the stability of the currency of their future partner and would derive no advantage from asking us to accept an unfair or excessive burden?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that that will be their attitude. Indeed, so far as European currencies are concerned at present, I believe that there is general confidence in Europe in the present


strength of sterling and in our balance of payments.
I was interested to see that in the recent talks in Brussels and since there is a very deep interest in Europe, not least by the French delegates, in closer European cooperation in monetary matters. We have always made it clear that we are prepared to go along with the best of them on this question and shall be prepared to do so and to negotiate, if that is an issue in the negotiations, or afterwards if that is an issue afterwards.
I believe that nothing but good can be gained within an enlarged Community from much closer co-operation in financial matters. In this, we have a great deal to give from the strength of our currency and balance of payments and the financial expertise of this country in many matters which will be of benefit to Europe as a whole.

Mr. Albu: Can the Prime Minister make any comment on reports in today's Press that the French Government are considering ways in which they can assist in reducing whatever may be the financial burden caused by our entry?

The Prime Minister: I have read these Press reports. I have no information on them. I believe that there has been among people in France an increasing awareness that there will be benefit for France and Europe generally from British entry. I cannot confirm or deny statements in the Press, but many of these matters may become clearer in negotiations.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: The Prime Minister will be aware that Chapter 2 of the White Paper is headed "Agriculture and Food". Can he give an assurance that before a debate takes place in the House the other one of the triumvirate—Fisheries—for which his right hon. Friend is responsible, will receive adequate treatment in the same way as the rest of agriculture and food has had in this document?

The Prime Minister: There is a reference to it in the White Paper and, of course, this matter was very much studied at the time of our decision, in 1967, to make application. I believe that this is a most important issue which we shall want to consider. If it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, on

balance I would feel that we shall have less trouble on fishery questions in the European Economic Community than we have had in the European Free Trade Area.

Mrs. Anne Kerr: Does the Prime Minister appreciate that while housewives may primarily appear to be concerned only about the increase in the cost of food if we enter the Common Market, they are also concerned about the political impact such an entry might bring about? May this be included in the debate we are to have, so that it is not confined merely to the narrow confines of the White Paper which many of us have not had an opportunity to read?
Does the Prime Minister also recognise that in the constituency which I represent, which has a very large number of ex-Service men and men concerned with overseas work, there is very strong resistance to the idea of doing anything further to undermine the idea of the British Commonwealth?
Finally, does the Prime Minister recognise that among the young people of this country there is a total lack of enthusiasm for the idea of the United Kingdom joining the European Common Market?

The Prime Minister: The political implications of going into Europe, for and against entry, are not, I believe, differentiated by sex as far as this country is concerned. I believe that many men and women, including right hon. and hon. Ladies and Gentlemen in this House, will have formed their own views about these questions and that there will be those inside and outside this House, ladies and gentlemen, who will feel that the political advantages are decisive or that perhaps they are disastrous. So I do not think it is a question of linking this question with housewives.
The debate will be a matter for the Chair, against the background of the Motion on the Order Paper.
Since this White Paper is not a statement of policy by the Government, since policy has been decided, namely, to apply and to leave a final decision until we know the terms, and since it is meant to be a factual White Paper, it would be for the greater convenience of the House if


we were to debate it on a Motion to take note of the White Paper.
This would enable all hon. Members to say whether they agreed with the facts and figures stated in it and would also, subject to your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, allow hon. Members to attempt to quantify those parts which we have not ourselves attempted to do so.
Certainly, I would have thought that in so far as the debate goes into issues of policy and the terms on which we could accept membership, everything said by my hon. Friend would be in order, subject to your Ruling, Sir.

Mr. Tapsell: Would the Prime Minister agree that the key short-term consideration is the cost to Britain on the balance of payments of entry into the Common Market? In this context paragraph 101 of the White Paper estimates the cost at between £100 million and £1,100 million. Does the extraordinary vagueness of this estimate reflect the inability of the Government to form a judgment or their desire to sweep the whole subject under the carpet until the General Election is out of the way?

The Prime Minister: The last part of the question is below the hon. Gentleman's usual very high standard in these matters. I would guess that he started reading the White Paper at paragraph 101 and did not work through it in the short time available. I believe that when he has read the White Paper he will see how that paragraph has been constructed and with what background.
It is not an assessment of short-term agricultural costs to which the hon. Gentleman referred in his question. It is a total of the extremes of the range, the extreme estimate as regards agriculture, trade and other considerations. I believe that the House will agree, when it has studied it, that either extreme is most improbable, because it would be almost incompatible for certain of the assumptions to co-exist against such a total. That is better discussed in debate.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the final cost within the range will depend on a lot of assumptions which we cannot at this stage be categorical about, and also on the progress of negotiations.
When it comes to the debate, if the hon. Gentleman is prepared to chance his

arm in being categorical on some of his assumptions, on which we have said that there is no finalisation, if he is prepared to be more specific about them, and can tell us how he thinks the negotiations will go, I will be prepared to accept his strictures when the time comes.

Mr. Barnett: As there will be some balance of payments costs, although not perhaps so over-stated as they have been and no doubt will be in the future, will the Prime Minister consider the possibility of a European reserve currency to take over sterling's rôle and so enable us to meet that higher rate of growth rather than a continuing surplus on the balance of payments of £500 million?

The Prime Minister: This is a matter which I dealt with in answer to the question put by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys). We made clear in 1967 that we were certainly prepared to enter into discussions for a common currency. The problems of a reserve currency have moved on a good deal since 1967, for example the Basle agreement and the special drawing rights. We are prepared to enter into discussions, as I have said, with the best of them either in the terms which I have just mentioned or those set out in the recent discussions in Brussels.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I welcome the White Paper's conclusion in paragraph 108 that failure to negotiate entry at a cost that we could afford would mean the loss of an historic opportunity for Europe to contribute to world peace and prosperity. In the light of that conclusion, would the Prime Minister not agree that any attempt to perform a political somersault and run away from negotiations before the next General Election would be to put narrow party political advantage first and the interests of the country second?

The Prime Minister: The words of paragraph 108 were also echoed in the concluding words of my statement this afternoon. That is what I said at my own party conference in Brighton last September and on many other occasions. That is our position.
It has been made clear many times, both inside and outside the House, that our application is in; and I have said today that it is not in question that it is in. I have heard no pressure to withdraw


the application—certainly not at any of the three party conferences, and there was no vote at our conference that we should withdraw it.
The application is in. We have said that we are ready to begin negotiations tomorrow if the other countries are. We now know of their willingness to start this year, and there can be no question of not proceeding with determination to succeed in those negotiations. If the price proves to be too high that will be another matter for the Government and the House.

Mr. Heffer: Would my right hon. Friend agree that nothing has changed with the publication of the White Paper and that attitudes for or against entry into the Common Market remain the same? Would he not also agree that we are faced with three basic alternatives: we become a satellite of the United States, or we join a wider European community and build a united Europe, or we try to remain completely independent and isolated. Is it not clear that the future of our country must be in a united Europe at the earliest possible moment?
Is my right hon. Friend not absolutely correct in approaching this matter with the greatest of caution and on the basis of negotiation, which is the sensible attitude which is being adopted at the moment?

The Prime Minister: This White Paper does not raise the issues touched on in the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). It sets out to be an objective assessment of whatever is quantifiable so that all hon. Members and people outside can decide what they think the choice is and what decision they would take faced with that choice. I think that my hon. Friend's list of the three questions is perhaps a little over-simplified. For example, there would be no question of our becoming a satellite of the United States when we are in the position of economic strength in which we are today and in which we intend to remain. Nevertheless, my hon. Friend's conclusion happens to be the one which I and the Government have reached. But I think that these are much more matters for the debate than for questioning over the White Paper, which

many hon. Members have not yet read right through.

Sir Beresford Craddock: May I ask the Prime Minister about subsidies to industry? As he knows, there are various articles in the Treaty of Rome which forbid member countries to subsidise industry in their own countries. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to obey those articles and withdraw all the subsidies which we give to British industry?

The Prime Minister: I think that the philosophy and the letter of the Treaty of Rome follow closely the G.A.T.T. rules requiring the country not to subsidise industry in a way which gives it an unfair export advantage. Those matters can be raised in G.A.T.T. and have recently been raised in E.F.T.A. from time to time.
But there is nothing in the Treaty of Rome as I read it, or as it has been carried out in practice, which prevents Government assistance to the internal reorganisation of industry. For example, the I.R.C. has been under some degree of questioning in recent days. If it has any analogy outside this country, it has some analogy with the I.R.I. in Italy, which has been highly successful there. Its operations have not been questioned in more than 10 years of the Treaty of Rome.

Mr. John Mendelson: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the increased opposition and the area of doubt about our entry to the Common Market, particularly on economic grounds, since the last debate took place? Will he accept that some of those who are full of doubt and apprehension have been somewhat reassured by his categorical statement several times in recent months that if he found the conditions unacceptable he would not propose entry? Would my right hon. Friend now accept that the definition of what is unacceptable must include not only terms about the transitional period, but the basic terms for the future economic arrangements in the Community? My right hon. Friend has said nothing about that yet. Would he give the assurance that the Community must also make concessions to us if we are to find conditions acceptable?

The Prime Minister: It is always implicit in negotiations that either party is


free to say "No", if terms are unacceptable. I cannot imagine any hon. Member entering into negotiations on that question—or any question in this House—which did not leave him free at the end of the day to say "No" if the terms were unacceptable. That is true of industrial negotiations, trade negotiations and negotiations as fundamental as are covered here. This has always been our position.
What we had to decide three years ago was whether he should apply. I believe that is not now in question in this House. What will be in question is the final terms.
As to the last part of my hon. Friend's question—whether I would make it clear to those with whom we shall be negotiating that they will have to show a bit of give as well, if that is what he is saying—obviously that is what negotiations are about. We have not sought to make negotiations more difficult in this White Paper by speculating about the progress of negotiations. No hon. Member would have wished us to do so.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: When the Prime Minister said this afternoon that he felt that if the terms offered in the final negotiations proved unacceptable it would still be possible for this country virtually to go it alone, had he given thought to the necessity that would then automatically come about of having to revise completely our whole preferential trade system and attitude towards the most-favoured-nation clause and, finally, the whole question of the possibility of European countries having a common currency?

The Prime Minister: I did not say that we should be going it alone. Britain would never be alone in these circumstances. We have trading relations with the Commonwealth. We have trading relations with Europe, which are highly productive and fertile, both ways, with Britain outside the Common Market. That phrase can be picked up both ways by different sides to the dispute. We have productive trading with the United States, and with countries which are neither in the Commonwealth nor in the Common Market.
I do not think that there is any question of our being unable to survive in that situation, but our survival in that

situation, or within an enlarged Community, will depend on our economic strength, which is now much greater than it was three years ago, or 10 years ago. In those circumstances, I believe that we can survive, but in neither case shall we be alone.
There will also be the benefits of the Kennedy Round, whether we are in the Common Market or outside it, and these are all parts of what will be an interrelated world trading community. I do not think that there is any question of our standing alone, although I believe that we shall pay a price, and Europe will pay a price equally with us, if agreement cannot be reached.

Mr. J. T. Price: We shall all wish to give the most careful study to the White Paper which my right hon. Friend has just outlined. Is he aware that there is growing anxiety, in all sections of British public opinion, regardless of party politics, about the bipartisan Butskellite movement emanating from this House in favour of admission to the Common Market?
Whatever may be the long-term, hypothetical, imponderable advantages of the Common Market, is it not quite clear to any thinking person who knows anything about our affairs that in the short term the absolutely certain immediate outcome of admission to the Common Market will be, first, increases in food prices, second, a very serious limitation of our sovereign power to make economic decisions, and, third, complete disruption of our agriculture policy, to which many of us have given sincere support?
Will my right hon. Friend take serious notice of those feelings, and ensure that not only the economic theorists are given a hearing, but that practical men who know something about public opinion are given a fair crack of the whip when a decision is taken on this matter?

The Prime Minister: I have not noticed that the fact that both Front Benches are in support of entry to Europe on satisfactory terms has been in any way inhibiting to hon. Members on the back benches of both major parties, to say nothing of the third party. I think that there has been, and will be, a continuing and lively debate. I have not seen any repression of, or inhibition on the part of, those who


take a different view from that taken by the Government, or the Official Opposition, or the Liberal leadership—[Interruption.] I was not aware that my hon. Friend was inhibited by that.
The questions asked by my hon. Friend are matters for the judgment of the Government and the House when the time comes. I do not disagree with what my hon. Friend said about the inevitable short-term price as regards agriculture, the cost of living, and other matters, but these will be outweighed by long-term gains to Britain, to Europe, and to the world. This is a matter about which everyone must form an opinion. We cannot form it until we have the negotiations, and that is not an issue on the publication of the White Paper.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is important, but I must protect the business of the House.

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA (AMENDMENT)

4.25 p.m.

Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law with respect to the carriage of goods by sea.
I have here a non-controversial little Bill which seeks to modernise the law of the carriage of goods by sea and to bring it into the spirit of the container age. It may, therefore, be considered a modest ember in the white hot technological revolution.
The Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1924, is nearly half a century old, and although it has stood the test of time and ratifies a previous convention known as The Hague Rules, which have a wide measure of international acceptance and support, it is, inevitably, out of date in some particulars; and I particularise especially the limitation of liability for loss or damage—and I speak in general terms—of individual packages or parcels which are carried by sea.
There is at present an international agreement that this should be limited, roughly speaking, to £100 per packet, and one can imagine that if, as is so often the case, containers are considered as individual packages or parcels the law is, in financial terms, ludicrously out of date. Changing conditions of international commerce have called for many modifications, and this is certainly the view of carriers and of traders.
History repeats itself, in that whereas the 1924 Act was the result of an international conference at Brussels in 1924, in 1968 there was another international conference on maritime law in Brussels which resulted in a protocol to amend The Hague Rules in the manner that the Bill seeks to do. The lead was taken by the noble Lord, Lord Diplock, who persuaded all the nations represented at Brussels in 1968 to renegotiate the rules, and the protocol was the result.
Two years have elapsed, but no nation has so far ratified that protocol, and the Bill seeks to perform, as far as the United Kingdom is concerned, the task of ratification and to give a lead to the other nations in the way that Lord Diplock gave a lead to the confence. That is what our shipowners who carry the goods


would like. That is what our traders whose goods they carry would like. I believe that that is what both sides of the House would like, and that is why I am asking the leave of the House to bring in the Bill.
In conformity with the Brussels protocol, the Bill will raise the limit of liability per package from £100 to about £270 per package. It will also make provision to enable higher limits to be agreed between the parties. A further provision, and one of the most important alterations, will remove doubts as to whether a container of cargo is to be treated as a single package, or whether the articles it contains are to be treated as separate packages for the purposes of the rules.
The Bill will provide, in effect, that a container will count as one package unless the individual packages it contains are listed on the bill of lading. In that case, each package will count separately for the purpose of liability. This clarification is of immense importance in removing one uncertainty in the way of the full exploitation of this modern innovation.
A number of other small but important changes in The Hague Rules have been made. In United Kingdom law, probably the most significant is that the defences and limits of liability in the convention will be available to servants or agents of the carrier although they are not parties to the contract of carriage.
The Bill will also make it clear that a bill of lading shall be conclusive evidence of the receipt by the carrier of the goods described in it. There will be a limiting period of one year from which suits can be brought against carriers in

respect of liability, though this may be extended by agreement between the parties after the cause of action has arisen.
I shall also provide that, in circumstances in which damage is done with intent, or recklessly, the carrier's liability shall be unlimited. This will be in line with similar provisions in other international transport conventions.
Furthermore, the application of the rules under Section 1 of the 1924 Act has proved unduly limiting in its scope in that our courts have decided that they are not obliged to apply them to a bill of lading issued outside the United Kingdom even when the law of the place of issue requires their application.
I freely admit that this will be a technical Bill, but our shippers and shipowners, who play such a vital role in our economy, think it important and are united in their wish to see it enacted. So, I think, are the shippers and shipowners of all other maritime nations, and, indeed, all those who use their services.
For these reasons, I commend the Motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke, Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby, and Mr. James Dunn.

CARRIAGE OF GOODS BY SEA (AMENDMENT)

Bill to amend the law with respect to the carriage of goods by sea; presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 20th March, and to be printed. [Bill 96.]

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL TRAINING BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.32 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment and Productivity (Mr. Edmund Dell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill, amending the Industrial Training Act and extending its coverage, would not be justified if one could not claim with some confidence that the 1964 Act has provided a sound basis on which to build.
There has recently been in this House some implied criticism of the industrial training board system and of some of its results. I will, therefore, start my speech by arguing that the progress so far made in promoting industrial training since the Industrial Training Act justifies the extensions in coverage established by the Bill. I will also have to show how far this amending Bill will link in with current operations under the Industrial Training Act and in the field of industrial training generally.
The Industrial Training Act commanded—and, I hope, still commands—the support of all political parties and of both sides of industry. It is not difficult to see why it should have that support. Industrial training spreads its rewards widely. For the individual worker, training releases his potential skill, improves his efficiency, boosts his confidence and increases his earning power.
For industry, training gives a pay-off in greater productivity, higher quality of workmanship and a more flexible work-force able to adapt quickly to industrial and technological changes. For the country as a whole, these benefits of industrial training and of the further education associated with it are essential factors in promoting the present and future prosperity of the nation.
Twenty-eight industrial training boards, covering about 16 million workers, have now been established under the Act. Another—to cover banking, insurance and other financial activities—has been announced and should be set up before

long. Under the Bill, which it has been estimated brings something over 2 million workers into scope, the functions of some of the industrial training boards may, by order, be extended to cover the activities specified in Clause 1.
A few figures will illustrate the progress that has been made so far. During the first four years of the operation of the Act the numbers under training in the manufacturing industries rose by about 15 per cent. In the important group of industries covered by the Engineering Industry Training Board the increase was still higher—at least 25 per cent. Results are now available from a new survey carried out by my Department in September, 1968, and these show that at that time the total numbers under training in all industries in Great Britain were about 1,500,000, including 500,000 apprentices.
Since 1964 the proportion of boys getting an apprenticeship on leaving school has risen by nearly one-fifth to the record level of 43 per cent. in 1968. There was a slight falling off in this percentage in 1969 due entirely to the more difficult circumstances of the construction industry. Since the Act was passed, more than 4,000 students have attended introductory courses for the training of training officers. The number of off-the-job training places in the engineering, shipbuilding and steel industries has more than doubled. Many other instances of progress in promoting the quantity of training can be found in the annual reports of the individual training boards.
These achievements deserve much more publicity than they are normally given and it is a purpose of this Bill to create yet further opportunities to raise the quantity and quality of training provided in this country.
The quality of training has certainly been raised as a result of the 1964 Act. Over 120 training recommendations produced by the training boards have been approved and published for the guidance of their industries. These cover training for all types of occupations—apprentices, operators, technicians, clerical workers, supervisors, managers, technologists and professional people. As the payment of grant is progressively linked to the higher standards and more systematic methods of training laid down in these recommendations, so the quality of training is


raised in individual firms. Under the Bill, all this important work in raising the quality of training will begin to exercise its influence in the new areas brought by it within the scope of the legislation.
In terms of numbers most training must be carried out in industry, but substantial progress has also been made in the development of Government training schemes. The Bill in no way affects the importance of continuing the development of G.T.C.s. On the contrary, our aim is to ensure that the training carried out in Government training centres complements and supports the work of the boards, including any that might be set up as a result of the Bill.
The biggest innovation in Government training in recent years has been the introduction of the sponsored training scheme. This offers employers the opportunity of sending their own workers to the Centres for free training which is tailored to meet the needs of the firm and the individual. Under this scheme we are upgrading workers from unskilled or semi-skilled to skilled work; giving skilled workers a higher level of skill; or converting a worker's existing skill into a new one. About 750 sponsored workers have already been trained since the scheme started last year and 350 are undergoing training at present. This scheme has the backing of both the C.B.I. and the T.U.C. and employers are discovering that it provides a ready means of overcoming particular shortages of skill.
Naturally, the work of the training boards, like that of any new machinery, has thrown up a number of problem areas which are the subject of continuing study by the Central Training Council, the training boards themselves and my Department. Many questions are currently being asked about the actual working of the industrial training board system. Does more need to be done to co-ordinate the work of the training boards at both national and regional levels? Are the levy/grant schemes the most effective way of providing the necessary incentive to improve and extend industrial training? Is the system fair to small firms? How do we assess the work of the boards and evaluate the developments that are taking place?
Can the boards do more to help with the retraining of redundant workers who cannot easily be redeployed in new jobs, or is there scope here for an extension of the schemes of training provided by the Government? Is there a sufficiently close relationship between the boards and the industries on behalf of which they are operating?
These are questions about which the boards and the Government must be concerned, even more if we pass this Bill extending the scope of the original Act. The Cousins Committee, which is reviewing the functions and organisation of the Central Training Council, is necessarily considering the basic framework of the system established under the Act. I pause here to pay a tribute to the work of Frank Cousins and to wish him a speedy return to health. Consideration to these questions has also been given both in my Department and in several training boards. I should not wish the House to think that the short Bill we are to debate today, important though it is, in any way exhausts our thinking about future industrial training policy.
The Bill does two things. First, it extends the range of activities which may be brought within scope of industrial training boards. Second, it adds to the categories of working people for whom training boards may provide services.
It will help the House if I deal with these two matters separately. So, first, I will say a word about the range of activities or the areas of employment which are being brought within scope of the Secretary of State's powers by the Bill.
The Act of 1964 already has a wide coverage. Section 1 of that Act empowers the Secretary of State to establish industrial training boards in respect of such activities of industry or commerce as may be specified in an order laid before the House. The key phrase is "activities of industry or commerce". That is a very broad phrase. It was, I believe, drafted with the intention that it should include not only activities in industry and commerce, as we normally understand that expression, but also similar activities going on in bodies or organisations which were not themselves organised for commercial purposes.
On this basis, some of the orders made over the last five years or so


setting up industrial training boards, have covered some activities similar to those of industry or commerce. But, as hon. Members know, in May of last year a judgment was given in another place in the case between the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board and the Royal Automobile Club which had the effect of confining the scope of the 1964 Act to activities actually carried on in industrial or commercial establishments. About half a million workpeople hitherto within the scope of training boards were thereby deemed to be outside scope.
The first purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to restore the scope of the Industrial Training Act to what it was formerly thought to be. The employments excluded by the judgment require training provisions similar to those of industry or commerce and are as much in need of the guidance and encouragement of the training boards. Clause 1 tackles this in two ways. First, in subsection (1)(a) by reference to activities similar to those of industry or commerce. This would have the effect, for example, of putting catering in schools or other educational institutions on the same footing under the Act as commercial catering activities; or local authority building workers on the same footing as other construction workers; or the employees of a friendly society engaged in insurance business on the same footing as those of insurance companies constituted on normal commercial lines.

Mr. David Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify one small point? Does the Bill extend the activities to include, for example, canteen workers in Government Departments?

Mr. Dell: As the hon. Gentleman may know, no provision is made in the Bill in respect of Crown employment. Perhaps I should also make clear that the Bill extends the operations of industrial training boards only to the extent that orders are subsequently laid before the House. As I shall explain in a moment, it is an enabling Bill and, to enable the powers within the Bill to be used, there has to be an order before the House.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: It would help the House in the general debate if the Minister will say what orders he is likely to lay before

the House. Does he intend to cover clubs by an order, and to what extent does he intend to make use of the Bill?

Mr. Dell: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to members' clubs, they may be referred to during the debate, and I shall be answering the debate. If we extend the existing industrial training boards, or introduce new industrial training boards under the Bill when it is an Act, there will be full consultation before we do so and, therefore, full warning to everyone involved.
Second, the Bill sets out to restore the scope of the Act by referring in Clause 1(1)(b) to bodies having statutory powers. This will cover a wide variety of bodies. Examples are—and there is no special significance in this selection—river and harbour authorities, marketing boards and the B.B.C. It might be held that some of the activities of such bodies are similar to those of industry or commerce and therefore covered by Clause 1(1)(a). I suppose, for example, that this is true for B.B.C. television since it may be regarded as being similar to commercial television which, being commercial, is clearly within scope. But does it hold for B.B.C. radio services? The answer is not so clear. To avoid future doubts arising on issues of this kind, the Bill sets out in the two ways I have described to restore the scope of the Act to what it was previously thought to be.
Clause 1(1)(b) also extends the scope by bringing in the whole of local authority employment. Some local authority activities, such as municipal bus companies, are already in scope. Others, such as the school meals service and local authority manual workers, were regarded as being in scope until the judgment to which I have referred. It is proposed in the Bill not simply to bring back these excluded sectors, but to bring in the main areas of local authority employment as well.
This means that when the Bill comes into operation, it will be possible, subject to necessary consultations, to lay an order before the House to establish a statutory training board for local government. But I want to impress on the House today that there is no question of our having decided there is now a need for such a statutory board. I am impressed with the initiative taken by local authority associations in England and Wales to set


up their own local government training board on a voluntary basis.
I understand, too, that, in common with the statutory boards, it has made good progress in its first two years of work. While it is some way yet from getting support from all authorities for its levy and grant operations, it is achieving a substantial measure of support.
In these circumstances, it may be asked why power is being taken in the Bill to provide a statutory board for local government. Is it not better to let the voluntary arrangements proceed? My answer is that we are ready to be convinced of this, but at the moment it is an open question. The chairman of the board recently asked, "Will the voluntary board be able to fulfil the task?" and then went on to say:
The Local Government Board has been very progressive and has looked at the requirements, and it has 'upped' its levies very well But many people, and many of the trade unions, do not feel too sure that enough money will be forthcoming. Local authorities are very much aware that they are dealing with public money and that they have been elected by the public as custodians for the proper and economic use of that money. There are people who feel that it may be difficult to get a large enough levy for a voluntary board. That remains to be seen, but, as I have said, the levy has so far risen pretty steeply. However, there is certainly a tremendous lot still to be done; and also 100 per cent. still needs to be done in relation to the manual workers.
There is, as Lord Morris of Grasmere said, much to be done, and it is not yet certain that it can be done by a voluntary board. This being the case, we feel bound to take these powers. But there will be no question of using these powers without the fullest possible consultation with local authority associations, trade unions and others concerned.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Will the Minister confirm that this order, if it is ever laid, will be debatable in the House? I am sure that the local authorities will be relieved to hear that he has gone some way towards meeting them on this point.

Mr. Dell: It is always possible to debate orders establishing training boards on a statutory basis by means of a Prayer tabled against them.
This, of course, applies to the whole of Clause 1. The passage of the Bill will not have any automatic effect on the range

of activities within scope of training boards. Such changes depend on the amendment of industrial training orders or the laying of new orders, and such action will not be taken without full consultation first with the interests affected.
The Bill is an enabling measure. This is why it is drawn in broad terms. The place for defining specific activities, for determining what should be brought within scope of a statutory board and what kept out, is in the industrial training orders concerned. Clause I certainly covers some activities and some bodies which we shall not want to bring within scope of boards. It includes some charities, for instance, although there is no intention of bringing charities generally within scope of boards. But it is better to deal with this sort of problem in industrial training orders after full consultation and necessary examination of particular cases.
The only exclusion written into Clause 1 concerns teaching, and this for quite special reasons. Teachers, particularly those in technical education, are partners with the training boards and industrial training personnel in promoting and developing training in accordance with the 1964 Act. This partnership and cooperation are quite crucial. It was thought desirable in the Bill to avoid even the appearance of a suggestion that teachers might be brought within scope of training boards so that this balanced partnership should not be disturbed. So much for Clause 1.

Sir Spencer Summers: The hon. Gentleman has said that there is no intention at the moment to bring charities in to the scheme of the Bill. There are activities which are carried out by local authorities and also by charities. Will the hon. Gentleman see to it that when consultation takes place with the local authorities opinions are also sought from charities engaged in similar work, even if there is no intention to include them?

Mr. Dell: We can make our consultations as wide as necessary in particular cases. I would emphasise that there are certain charities which might be brought within scope by an order presented to the House.
Clause 2 concerns employers and self-employed persons who do not have any employees. Section 2(1)(a) of the 1964 Act lays a duty on training boards to provide or secure the provision of necessary training for persons employed or intending to be employed in their industries. Experience has shown that this restriction of boards' training services to employees leaves certain important areas of training untouched. Clause 2 seeks to repair this by giving boards power—and I emphasise power, and not a duty—to provide such services as may be required to employers or self-employed people in their industry.
First, a word about employers. There is evidence from a good number of industries, particularly those having large numbers of small establishments, that employers themselves often stand to gain as much from opportunities for relevant training as any of their employees. In some small businesses the outstanding need is for the principal or owner to he assisted with management training. But, as things stand, boards are unable to help, whereas by contrast they can already assist with the training of working directors of limited companies. Clause 2 will rectify this anomaly and give boards discretion to provide services to employers subject to the Secretary of State's approval.
There is not the same general demand for boards to be able to give services to self-employed people who are not also employers. But there is a need of this kind in agriculture, and we foresee other instances which could arise with special groups of workers such as outworkers or freelance workers. It is, of course, important that boards should concentrate their efforts on areas of material need and not disperse their resources too widely. For this reason we intend to control very closely the use which may be made of this new power in relation to the self-employed by use of Sections 2(5) and 7(2) of the 1964 Act.
There is also a distinction to be drawn between employers and other self-employed people in regard to the financing of training. There is no power in the 1964 Act to raise a levy on self-employed people, and it is not proposed to seek such power. This means that any services provided to the self-employed will have to be on a basis of direct payment.

It will similarly be open to boards, if they wish, to provide services to employers in return for fees. But, equally, it will be open to boards under existing powers to finance such services by levy. This will be a matter for boards themselves to consider and to submit proposals as they see fit.
Finally, I should like to give the House notice of a new Clause that I shall be proposing to add to the Bill in Committee. It will be chiefly concerned with two matters that have lately become urgent. First, it will enable boards to pay to their members allowances for loss of remuneration through attendance at board and committee meetings. Second, it will enable the payment of fees to members of the Central Training Council who participate in special survey work. I will explain these matters more fully when the Clause is put down. But I wished to mention them briefly to give the House warning of this intention.
I hope that the House will give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.

Mr. Peter Emery: Why have the Government sought in the Bill to deal only with the fairly minor points mentioned by the hon. Gentleman and listed in the Clauses rather than to deal with the overall problem faced by the Central Training Council and to wait for the recommendations of the review body to carry out the recommendations which he knows are already in draft?

Mr. Dell: A committee of the Central Training Council is currently carrying on a review of the operations of the council, and one of the powers proposed to be taken in the further Clause to which I referred at the end of my remarks may be relevant to one of the committee's proposals.

4.55 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I am sure the House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his lucid explanation why the Bill has come before us today and for giving us the background to the judgment in another place which led to large numbers of people being exempted and which was against the spirit and idea behind the original Act. In many ways we would regard this provision as a tidying-up and amending Measure. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman will be seeking the


leave of the House to reply to the debate later on, and I am sure he will be granted it, since I have a number of points for clarification, as I am sure have other hon. Members.
The 1964 Industrial Training Act was one of the last pieces of legislation introduced by the Conservative Government. I would agree with the hon. Gentleman that it was necessary and few would doubt that. The Minister referred to the quality and quantity of industrial training. It is worth recalling that the Act aimed orginally at increasing both the quality and quantity of training and at sharing costs more fairly throughout the industry.
The present Government have been responsible for implementing that Act and most fair-minded people would agree that the overall effect has been beneficial. There is plenty of evidence that the quality and quantity of training have increased. We were given a number of figures today. Nevertheless, we on these benches are also concerned about the rising tide of criticism directed at particular training boards at present and the detailed aspects of their work.
I believe that these valid criticisms, which have been reaching me and my right hon. and hon. Friends, and, I am sure, the Minister, since he referred obliquely to the matter, are sufficiently serious to justify a careful examination at Ministerial level of the whole operation of the industrial training board's system. I am disappointed, despite the right hon. Gentleman's final remark about his new Clause, that an opportunity has not been taken in the presentation of this Bill to go further into this aspect. In recent months, the House will know, the Construction Industry Training Board has been the target of much complaint and this has tended to concentrate on the operation of its particular levy grant system which many small and medium-sized firms consider to be unfair. There has been criticism of their finances and of their announced possible deficit of £6 million when we reach March.
The Central Training Council has already attracted adverse comment. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments about the inquiry which is now taking place, and we support his remarks

about Mr. Cousins' health. Can he say when that committee will report? It will be useful to get some sort of time scale in this connection.
One has heard comments about other individual boards, for example, the Engineering Training Industry Board, since some employers say that it does not understand the situation and does not provide exactly the right training for small firms. But, to be fair, the comment is not all adverse. In fact I should like to draw attention to an article in The Times Business News of yesterday in which it was said that it was the view of the industrial training board all too widely held among managers of small or medium-sized businesses that
They are very good at spending our money but they give us little in return. It's all too formal and academic to be useful to us.
The article continues:
The Rubber and Plastics Process Industry Training Board can, however, quote concrete instances where the training of shop-floor employees has actually saved firms hard cash.
It points out that often there is initial resistance to training, particularly among long-term employees, but that when they see examples of the work they come round and give it extra support. Therefore, I think that one has to bear in mind that there are supporting claims in addition to the criticisms which are made.
In our view, it is essential that great care should be taken to avoid a build-up of unnecessary and wasteful bureaucracy in the operation of the boards. It is equally essential for everyone concerned to be convinced that the levy-grant system is operated fairly and reasonably. Self-criticism is not always seen to be a virtue by the training boards, and more of it might be helpful. There should be a continuous evaluation of their work and performances, encouraged by the right hon. Lady and her Department. The opportunity for a review has been missed today by the Government. However, I can give industry and those who are worried about the situation the assurance that the next Conservative Government will look closely into these questions, if the present Government fail to act in due course.
At the outset, we on this side of the House believed in the basic principle that if an employer draws on a pool of skilled labour, he ought to contribute either by


taking part in training or paying a levy to enable others to do so. The words "levy" and "grant" have become somewhat emotive in recent times, and that is a pity. In the end, it may be that the only possible way of achieving further progress in industrial training will be in other directions. It was always felt that, to be fair, the Act should be applied all the way down. However, the application has to be practical, and this has been realised. I welcome the move of those boards which have raised the exemption limit, and I would be pleased to see some go even further, because that would be appreciated by industry.
Some of the most pertinent complaints that we get against the operation of the Act can be summarised by saying that some people believe that the boards are too quick to move to specific recommendations before they have made a fundamental assessment of the training needs in their industries. The boards have also tended to favour established forms of training, rather than innovations. This encourages unimaginative training by companies. The operation of the levy-grant system discriminates against the firm which has a stable work force. Obviously there is a limit to the amount of training which can be absorbed by such a firm. In the end, if it goes on too long, it becomes counter-productive. In addition, because of the levy-grant system, the boards do not always have the strict financial discipline under which industrial companies have to operate, and companies tend to become resentful of what they regard as the bureaucratic interference associated with the boards. Many companies also regret that there is so much paper work involved in applying for grant, which represents an extra burden on top of other Government interference. I will not go into questions of S.E.T. and the other form-filling which is required of them. It is an additional aggravation and is not calculated to make them quite so keen on industrial training.
Then there is the point which I raised in a supplementary question to the right hon. Gentleman at Question Time the other day. He gave me a rather scornful reply. However, there is evidence that there is a good deal of training for training's sake. Some companies devote their energies to maximising their grant and getting all that they are able to claim.

This provides for quantity, but it is undesirable and is against the principle of the Act. I hope that something will be done about it.
A chance has been missed to put right a number of basic wrongs in what is an excellent scheme that needs to be put back on the right path. I am sure that we are all agreed that it would be disastrous if large sections of industry became hostile to the concept of industrial training. Certainly we need industrial training if we are to retain our competitive position both at home and abroad.
I turn now to the Bill's proposals which have been enumerated by the right hon. Gentleman. I have been talking so far about what is not contained in the Bill and what, in my view, should have been. The specific proposals include a change back to the original intention by specifically including welfare and other noncommercial activities, extending the scope of the original Act by including local authorities and other statutory bodies, and also by including self-employed persons and employers.
The first of those points arises from the need to cancel the effect of the judicial decision taken in another place. The other two are new but very important propositions. It is a pity that Crown establishments are not included, as the Minister confirmed when he answered a question put to him by one of my hon. Friends. Undoubtedly that is a point with which we can deal in Committee.
I remind the House that over a million employees were within the scope of the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board as originally conceived. I believe that that Board is one of the better ones. It has done an efficient and good job. The judgment excluded about 200,000, of whom some 14,000 were employed by members' clubs. The bulk of the 200,000 excluded were employed in the school meals service. Because the case was contested by this Board, some people tended to lose sight of the fact that it was Parliament's original intention that these people should be caught by the original Act, and not the board's. There was no vindictiveness on the part of the board in taking the action that it did. The right hon. Gentleman has quoted examples of employees who have come under the ju risdiction of other boards.
The Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board has a cut-off in its levy system at the level of the £4,000 per annum wage bill. The effect of that is to exclude 70,000 of the 80,000 listed employers from liability to levy. Over 85 per cent. of employers on the register, therefore, are not required to pay levy. The remaining 10,000 employers operate about 40,000 establishments and employ over 80 per cent. of the total labour force.
The effect of the £20 abatement is to reduce the nominal 1 per cent. levy to half per cent. for the smallest employer, so that an employer with a payroll of £4,000 pays £20 and not £40. Surely that is not a great burden, especially when one remembers that he has still a chance of getting tax deductible allowances.
The scope of the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board is different from that of some of the other boards in that it includes the catering workers from all other industries in addition to the minority employments in its own industry.
Having given the background to the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board, I come to the contentious matter about which a number of my hon. Friends wish to speak, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger). It concerns members' clubs. Naturally, such clubs are worried. However, it is fair first to put into perspective the board's position in relation to them.
From my researches, I find that the number of clubs in the country is about 1,250, and they have about 13,900 employees. These are non-profit making members' clubs which provide services like meals and accommodation for members. They are not proprietorial clubs in the sense of the gambling or drinking club which is there to make a profit. Of these clubs, about 1.000, with 6,450 employees, have payrolls below the £4,000 cut-off, so that they are not subject to levy. These include many of the type that we know like working men's clubs and golf clubs which have perhaps a steward, a stewardess and a part-time barman and do not fulfil the criterion of a £4,000 wage bill.
The key remaining 250 clubs employ about 7,450 people. They contributed about 42,000 to the board's first levy,

which works out at an average of about £170 per club. In the Greater London area there are 290 members' clubs of which 212 fall outside the current £4,000 levy limit. Of the 78 London clubs that remain which are liable to levy, the largest has about 100 employees with a levy of about £584. The smallest has only ten employees with a £24 levy.
The protagonists for bringing back the clubs submit that more than half of their activity is an hotel operation, because they provide meals and accommodation. The board is keen to have them back again, even though they are comparatively small, because it regards them as part of the hotel and catering industry and as they are using the type of people trained in that industry.
But the clubs are reluctant candidates to become members of the training club. Their case is that they are private establishments and not part of the industry. This is a very good point. I know that the Bill extends the scope outside industry, but they do not in any way measure up to the other examples that the right hon. Gentleman gave. They are a section entirely apart.
To be fair, I cannot share the view that the clubs are essentially private houses, run for the mutual benefit of their members. They are non-profit making, but they are a peculiar institution of their own, and I think that they should be regarded as private establishments rather than private houses.
The clubs also claim that their staff are often not typical of the hotel and catering industry. The movement of their trained staff is usually the other way. They go into industry, but those who have been trained in industry seldom come through to them. They have a large number of long service club servants who have been in the club business most of their working lives. Many are not keen to work outside in the ordinary hotel and catering industry. Many are foreigners, students and temporary workers; housewives doing part-time work. The staff generally has an esprit de corps often not found in other establishments outside.
It is also fair to say that the clubs resent having their court decision—which was, after all, taken by the highest court in the land—overturned by a new


Act of Parliament. There is a feeling of resentment, and it is right to express it.
But the most pertinent point is the ever mounting financial costs of members' clubs. They are assailed by S.E.T. and other rising costs caused by inflation, and they lack any tax allowance for depreciation as they are non-profit-making. Many, as we know and have read, are in financial difficulties. Some have had to close down; others have had to amalgamate.
There are many views on clubs. Some people do not like them. Some clubs are political; most are not. Most of them fulfil a good purpose. In many cases they are gatherings of people of identical interest. Many of them serve ex-officers or people connected with the arts and various other facets of activity. I believe that they perform a useful function.
I always see red when people refer to the House of Commons as being "the best club in the world." They do not appreciate how hard we work. We might, however, even think of incorporating the House of Commons, if the clubs are caught, because certain people here could do with a good deal of training.
I submit, without pressing the point too hard— I hope that some of my hon. Friends will deal with it—that the argument for and against clubs being included is finely balanced. I am sure that it will be developed not only this afternoon, but in Committee.
There is no doubt that clubs merit serious consideration, and perhaps there is a good case for exempting the smallest ones caught by the board's operations. I am sure that it is not the spirit and intention of the Industrial Training Bill to be oppressive to anybody. We want to generate a good spirit of co-operation. We shall return to this matter in Committee.
I now turn to the local authorities who, we are told, will now come within the scope of the Bill. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman went into the matter in some detail, because we regard this as important and many hon. Members have had representations from various local authority bodies.
The Local Government Training Board was set up on a voluntary basis in 1967 by the associations of local

authorities and by the G.L.C. Its main aim is similar to that of the statutory boards. It has begun to achieve its aims very successfully. It has accomplished a great deal in selection and training, and in the proper use of staff at various levels. I was interested to learn recently that its plans for advancement are well established.
The vast majority of local authorities support the board, and it raises 92 per cent. of the potential levy. That is excellent. Nearly all the boroughs and counties are members of it, and they employ about 84 per cent. of all local government employees of England and Wales.
One of the great bull points in favour of the voluntary board is that it has kept its administrative costs down to about 4 per cent. of its levy—much lower than the majority of statutory boards.
I am told by both the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils' Association that they feel that the creation of a statutory training board is unnecessary. I agree. I welcome the semi-assurance of the right hon. Gentleman this afternoon, but I feel that they will have a sword of Damocles hanging over them. I believe that the right hon. Lady should use her powers only if the voluntary board gets into difficulties in future and there is a need to supersede it.
Surely this is not the time to start interfering with local government on the question of training just as we are about to throw the whole of it into the melting pot. I quarrel with many aspects of the Redcliffe-Maud Report and the Government's White Paper, but I should be out of order if I went into them now. However, we all accept that whoever forms the next Government, local government will be reformed. If we are to have a statutory board for local government training I believe that it should await the new legislation which will come forth in due course—probably in the next Parliament.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to employers and self-employed. Here again, although the idea and intention is probably good—it is probably forward looking—I think that there is a case to consolidate the current work that is going on, because there are criticisms of it, before embarking on new ventures like this. I believe that a distinction


should be clearly drawn between the self-employed person who employs other people and the purely self-employed person who does not. In training terms, these two categories are quite different. A self-employed employer requires training, at least in part, for the benefit of his employees who are already within the scope of the Bill, because in a small business he will probably be the sole instructor available to them. But the self-employed person with no employees comes into a different category and therefore should not have the same consideration. We are now told that the self-employed are to be included for training purposes. But are they to be included for levy purposes? I am not sure.

Mr. Dell: I will clarify that now. I made clear in my speech that there would be no question of raising a levy on self-employed people.
While I am on my feet, may I ask the hon. Gentleman, as he is making this exclusion of self-employed people who do not employ others, how he would deal with the situation in agriculture?

Mr. Dudley Smith: The right hon. Gentleman has anticipated me. I am grateful for his information about the levy. However, I think the self-employed idea is unlikely to work well under any board, except agriculture, where the levy is to be deducted from Government support funds and is not raised by direct imposition on businesses. But the proposal generally is interesting and we shall want to return to the point in Committee.
Employers are now counted in the levy. I agree that in small and middle sized businesses the employer can often benefit from the right kind of industrial training. I do not think that it applies so much to large companies which have large training schemes, anyway. These do not necessarily affect the chief executives.
My view is that in the 'seventies training will take on new dimensions not envisaged in the Bill or even in the 1964 Act, and that there will be new functions which will need constant Government attention. One thing is absolutely certain—training is here to stay, and if it is properly organised, industry as a whole can get immeasurable benefit both for

the individual and for the nation. Because we support training and because we gave it its first national impetus, we shall support the Bill, although we reserve the right to criticise some of the details in Committee.
But our priority and that of the Government must surely be that the boards must get it right, that they must gain the co-operation and not the resentment of all those who come within their purview. If that happens, the Indus-trail Training Act will be seen to work efficiently. If not, this hostility will grow and it will be very serious for the industrial life of the nation.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. Reg Prentice: I came into the Chamber without intending to take part in the debate but I feel drawn towards intervention by a kind of nostalgia, because six years ago I was quite active in these subjects. It is a nostalgia which I see reflected on the face of the Opposition Chief Whip. Perhaps this would be an appropriate occasion for him to break the traditional silence of Chief Whips, because he was Parliamentary Secretary at the then Ministry of Labour and played an active part in these matters.
I welcome the Bill, particularly that part which extends the operations of the Industrial Training Scheme to employers. This was an omission from the original Act, one which was not noticed by the Opposition at the time any more than by the Government, and one which should be put right. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) thought that it would have little practical application outside agriculture. It is certainly needed badly there and possibly in other industries with a number of small employers. It might apply in part of the construction industry and elsewhere.
There are too many small employers—too many people in management structure generally, but particularly in small firms—who tend to think that training is for other people. There are too many tired clichés about having learned it all in "the school of experience" from people who need training and retraining to keep up to date with the changing pattern of the technology of their industries. This should be a major field of development


in future—extension of management training, which would include employers and self-employed.
I cannot resist commenting on the fact that the hon. Member spoke about the interest which his party had in these matters and said that it had given the first national impetus to training. It is true that they passed the Industrial Training Act, but they did so in 1964, and they passed it after many years in which some of us had been demanding such legislation. They passed it after many years in which it had become clear to progressive employers and trade unionists and to many in this House, particularly to the then Opposition, that legislation of this kind was needed. I do not know how many years we spent asking for something like this and pointing to the example of France, where there had been a levy rebate scheme, on a somewhat different scale, ever since the 1920s, with particularly good results. So, although this was part of the death-bed repentance of the Conservative Government, it was very long overdue.

Mr. Robert Carr: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is giving a rather warped historical account of the situation. When I was Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour between 1955 and 1958, I was the chairman of a committee which produced a report entitled "Training For Skill". I can speak, therefore, from experience. I certainly do not wish to criticise either the employer or the trade union members of my committee, but it would not be true to say that there was any pressure in that committee for legislation. Rather, the pressure to do something was to draw on both employers' and unions' representatives and not to hold them back.

Mr. Prentice: It is a tragedy that the doctrine in the report, "Training For Skill", remained the official policy for so many years. I agree that, when the right hon. Gentleman's committee was sitting, there was no considerable pressure either from employers or from unions for a changed system, but he and the Government of which he was a member gave no lead for a change, and they should have done. Even at that stage, some of us were asking that it should be done.
But, in the years between the report of what has become known as the Carr

Committee and the industrial training White Paper which preceded the Industrial Training Act, many people came around to the view that a new system was necessary. It was in those years that the Conservative Government were dragging their feet. They should have acted earlier, and if they had, our industry would have been in a much better condition to face the stresses and strains which the economic situation has presented it with over many years.
I referred to the past only because I was worried about some of the other passages in the speech of the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington. He seemed to be paying too much lip-service to some of the fears of employers in certain industries about the progress of the industrial training boards. It has surely been clear from the very beginning that the people who would sit on these boards from the employers' side and from the trade union side would be those with more forward-looking ideas on training. They have been selected with that in view. It was, therefore, clear that, in many cases, the boards would produce a scheme and a levy on a scale which, in their view, was necessary for a proper training scheme for the industry concerned, and that this would be unpopular with large sections of the employers who were unwilling to pay the levy, unwilling to fill up the forms and all the rest of it.
But surely it is the duty of everyone in the House, particularly those speaking on these matters from the two Front Benches, to encourage the work of the boards and, on the employers' side, to encourage the more progressive and forward-looking people, and to discourage the criticism which has been made of the boards for agriculture and the construction industry in the past—

Mr. Dudley Smith: I think that I did encourage and support them, but the boards are not above criticism and surely they are not perfect. I should have thought that the volume of complaints which we have had shows that there are some genuine grievances.

Mr. Prentice: Of course I am not suggesting that the boards are above criticism, and of course it should be voiced. But where there is a general resentment by sections of the employers in particular industries against the whole industrial training board operation because they


regard it as a new form of State interference with their business, it is broadly the duty of all parties in this House who supported the original Act to support the work of the boards and the philosophy which lies behind it.
As an ex-Minister of Public Building and Works, I think that this is particularly needed in the construction industry, an industry with enormous contrasts between the more and the less efficient units. In the more efficient parts of the building and civil engineering industry, there are first-class training schemes at all levels, including management training. Over a great part of the industry, particularly among some—not all—smaller and medium-sized firms, there is a need for a shake-up, a training revolution. Now that the Construction Industry Training Board has adopted proposals for a more ambitious levy grant system, it deserves the support of all of us.
I was very impressed by the figures which my right hon. Friend gave about the growth of industrial training in recent years. He concentrated on the manufacturing industries and particularly on engineering. Can we be given information about the spread of training into less conventional spheres? When the Act was passed many of us wanted to see a spread of organised training into fields of employment in which training was not considered necessary in the past.
For example, in the manufacturing industries there has for far too long been a division between the skilled worker, who served his time as a craft apprentice, and the other workers, whom we too loosely categorise as unskilled or semiskilled. The trend is for modern industry to blur these distinctions, and today more operatives require training to carry out their work efficiently.
One of the conservative forces in the training sphere has operated in the craft unions; and I speak as a member of a general workers' union. As such, I believe that adequate training is the right of every worker in every job. Thus, in respect of manufacturing industry, I want more information about the spread of training schemes into activities outside the traditional craft apprenticeships.
This, of course, is not confined to manufacturing industries, and I am con-

cerned with training in, for example, white-collar work, agriculture and the distributive trades. Many of these pursuits have had training boards for some time and I am sure that there is on record reports of those boards telling of their progress. May we be given information about the broad trends? Not only should it be the right of every entrant into these trades to be given good training, but the provision of good training must be in the national interest. Considering the manpower needs of the years ahead, we cannot afford, in any important activity, to fall short of the training standards that are required.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider two important aspects; first, the way in which industrial training boards can help with the training of people from developing countries overseas. I speak on this subject as a former Minister of Overseas Development. As the Secretary of State is also a former holder of that office—and as the original Act included powers for the boards to organise training for people from developing countries and to operate a grants system for those trainees—it would be helpful if my right hon. Friend could supply the latest information on the subject.
A number of people from developing countries are receiving training in Britain. They come here under various arrangements. Sometimes they are employed overseas by companies which also operate in this country and are brought here by their employers; sometimes they come here at their own expense or at the expense of their families; and sometimes they come under arrangements organised by the Ministry in conjunction with the D.E.P., although the numbers in this category are not as great as one would like. Discussions have been going on among Departments about this problem, and I hope that some progress has been made with a view to activating that part of the Act which would help in the matter.
Secondly, it has always seemed to me that each industrial training board requires a view of future manpower needs in the sphere in which it operates. This is a difficult thing to achieve. Ideally, it would be of great help, not only to the boards but to many people in, for example, higher and further education, if


we could have a kind of rolling manpower budget which gave a picture of the skills and the number of people who would be required in various categories in five, 10 or 20 years' time.
Some clever people have tried to produce figures of this sort on computers. The trouble is that it is not clear what data should be fed into the computer in the first instance. It is far better to be roughly accurate in this sphere than to be absolutely wrong. A great deal of work has been going on in various parts of Whitehall in recent years into this matter but, as far as I know, without reaching any stage of great sophistication.
Although the manpower research units of the D.E.P. have produced some important reports, this sort of work must be extended and, as far as possible, the training boards should be fed with whatever data can be made available to them about the future needs of their industries.
Training is a long process, particularly for certain categories of workers. It is easy to react to the training needs that are clear now, in 1970, but difficult to assess the training needs of 1980 and what sort of plans we should be making now to deal with them. This is a sphere of activity in which a great deal more work is needed so that we may play our full part in planning for the years ahead.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Hiley: The most useful contribution that I can make to this debate is to refer to the training board connected with the wool textile industry, which has many similarities to the board covering local government.
We have been told that a training board for local government has been established on a voluntary basis, that it is doing excellent work and that its administrative costs account for only 4 per cent. of its income, which is much cheaper than the costs of running the statutory bodies.
The same pattern applies to the board covering the textile industry. If hon. Members feel that we in the textile trade are not aware of the importance of training, I remind them that the wool industry was the first to set up a training board on a voluntary basis, and that was 25

years ago. It was then called "The recruitment, educational and training department of the textile industry", and it appointed an excellent man as its head. The new statutory board has received the nucleus of its officers from that originally voluntary board and the man who started the board in Bradford 25 years ago is now the head of the statutory body.
In the old days the administrative costs of the voluntary body totalled about £12,000 a year. Although an accurate comparison cannot be made, administrative costs today are probably 10 times greater. Those costs must be borne by the industry, and it is my duty, as the representative of a constituency in the midst of the textile country, to tell the Government that there is much anxiety in the wool textile trade as a result of the increasing burden of the statutory levy.
The Minister of State asked whether industrial training boards were fair to small firms. The answer from the West Riding of Yorkshire is that the majority of people employed there do not consider that they are fair at the moment to small firms. In this industry the majority of firms are small, particularly compared with huge industries such as engineering.
There is, and has been for a long time in Bradford, a council known as the Textile Employers' Council. It has sought to represent to the board the feelings of those in the industry. It realised that there was growing dissatisfaction with the system of grant and levy. It felt that this was not the best way to achieve the objectives of the 1964 Act. I thought that this Bill was an amending measure and I hoped to find something in it which would tend to rectify some of the unfortunate consequences affecting small firms, but such does not appear to be the case.
The Employers' Council said in its memorandum that it considered the system cumbersome and costly in terms of administration. Firms, especially small ones—-and it is a peculiarity of the textile trade that they are mainly small firms—find the operation of the training board worrying, time-consuming and costly and sometimes they even find it difficult to achieve the maximum grant to which they are entitled. Some firms lose grant because it is not practicable for them to find the staff prepared to attempt to work out the complexities of the system, with all the paper work that is involved. I


have with me the guide issued by the board for the completion of claims. I assure the House that it is a most formidable document. This has added a very heavy burden to an already hard-pressed industry. It has prevented many of the staff getting on with far more important jobs than merely filling in forms. The present system uses a great deal of capital for long periods and that adds further burdens to the costs of the industry.
Reference has been made to the effect of the levy system on firms with good labour records. I do not suppose anyone thought of this at the time when the board was set up. It is ironical that firms with good labour records which we want to encourage suffer because they have to subsidise firms with bad records which, of course, have a higher turnover of labour. It is believed that most people in the trade would prefer a scheme in which they would not be compensated for wastage in labour turnover to the situation in which they have participated in a system which has so many negative characteristics. The Employers' Council believes that a supply of trained personnel can be secured in a more simple way.
Its proposal is that the grant system should be abolished and the amount raised by the levy should be considerably reduced, say from 1·25 per cent. to ·1 per cent. The 1964 Act does not require the board to operate a grant and levy system, but Section 4 provides for the imposition of a levy and Section 2(4)(b) makes grants permissive. In practice the imposition of a levy of 1·25 per cent. costs small firms a few thousand pounds so that they contrive to have as much as possible repaid by grant involving a tremendous amount of paperwork.
This system, like selective employment tax, is wasteful of labour. Large sums are spent on establishing claims for grants by the firms and probably larger costs are incurred by the board in checking them. It may be that 1 per cent. of the total wage bill is required to pay for this. The Employers' Council is of the opinion that if it could cut out the grant and retain a very small levy which would allow the board to provide all the other useful services, this could be done at a tenth of the present cost to industry.

This proposal is not contrary to the spirit of the 1964 Act. Indeed, it is believed that its objectives could be achieved more satisfactorily and on a more acceptable financial basis by this proposal.
The general guide to the Industrial Training Act, 1964, says that the Act has three main objectives. These are: (a) to ensure an adequate supply of properly trained men and women at all levels in industry; (b) to secure an improvement in the quality and efficiency of industrial training; and (c) to share the cost of training more evenly between firms. The wool textile industry prefers to work on a voluntary basis even though sometimes the voluntary basis is supported by some statutory financing.
I give three examples of this. There has long been a scientific research and export promotion board. We have a bureau of statistics. We have a management services centre. This service operates on fees which are sufficient to pay all expenses of the management services centre. The Employers' Council would like to have a body established on similar lines to the M.S.C. to deal with training. It is considered that the needs of the industry would be better served if the board's staff were engaged on actual consultancy training in firms in a similar way to the M.S.C.
One of the omissions from the 1964 Act was provision for recruitment. This ought to be put right now. If the costs of unproductive labour could be cut out there should be sufficient money available to do something about recruitment, which is urgent. The industry—particularly those concerned with the export markets; and the industry has a proud record as sixth in the export league—can no longer bear increasing costs. The Council's proposals point the way to assisting them. I hope that the Minister will consider that the time has come when a change in the method concerning levy and grant would not do any harm to training. This has long been recognised as an integral part of the industry, but the costs are getting out of hand. I urge the Government to give this matter most careful consideration.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. John Robertson: I will not follow the hon. Member for Pudsey


(Mr. Hiley) into the mysteries of training in the textile industry. It would not be in the least helpful to make carping criticisms of training boards today. It is far too soon to make final judgments in this matter. Industrial training is a matter on which there is a large degree of agreement on both sides of the House. As the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) said, provision for industrial training was introduced by the last Conservative Government and has been continued by the present Government.
I have not met anyone in industry with a had word to say about the idea of training boards. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, one of the reasons why they were necessary was that training was carried out unevenly in industry. Some employers were asked to carry too great a burden, and a method had to be found to share the cost of training fairly. The fashionable word then was "poaching". We all remarked that many firms employed large numbers of workpeople but trained no one, and in particular did no skill training.
Therefore, we do not want to be too critical of the training boards at this stage. But there are trends which are a little worrying. For instance, it would seem that whenever a training board is set up and raises a levy the first thing it thinks of is to establish its own facilities, without considering those already in existence. In Scotland I have come across training facilities that are grossly underemployed because a training board has believed that it can carry out training only by building its own establishment, putting in its own machinery and providing its own instructors, when the job is essentially being done already in another place.
I am not convinced, therefore, that the Central Training Council is doing the job we thought it should do, which was to co-ordinate the work of the training boards and make sure that the best use was made of their capital equipment and administrative machinery, and carry out a general overseeing of the work of the separate training boards. I believe that the Council feels that it does not have the powers to do more than advise the Minister, and that it cannot intervene in the work of the training boards and thus influence decisions.
Not only are training boards themselves overlapping and duplicating facilities, but they are building training establishments next door to training establishments with all the facilities necessary already provided by education authorities. We have this form of duplication both in group schemes and individual training board schemes. It is a great waste of money. This is a legitimate criticism of some boards.
Education authorities feel that the line of distinction between education and training is rather fine. They argue that the two should be related and the job done in one building; that the job of technical education should be carried out along with the job of manual training.
Let us consider the question of skilled work. In the Engineering Training Board, for instance, the whole emphasis has been on craft training. A great deal of the commercial training, particularly of women—the training of shorthand typists and bookkeepers—is being done by the education authorities. In Scotland they have been asked to invest large sums of money in enlarging training establishments or building new ones, without knowing whether training boards will build similar establishments in the not too distant future, thus leaving the education authorities with a training facility that is grossly under-used. This situation is occurring today. I think that the Shipbuilding Industry Board does some commercial training, but hardly any of the other boards do so. The burden has fallen on the education authorities, but they are not given the grants available to the training boards, and have to bear the cost not only of the training but of buildings, equipment and so on. So it can be seen that co-ordination is lacking.
The Scottish Committee of the Central Training Council has complained very bitterly about this. It says that it is very difficult for it to do much in the matter because of the dreadful lack of information. No information is available to it that would enable it to attempt any work of co-ordination. But the Scottish section of the C.B.I. is complaining that the Scottish Committee of the C.T.C. is making no attempt to co-ordinate the work of industrial training boards. The C.T.C. should be given powers to control the work of training boards, co-ordinate


their work and see that there is no duplication.
I agree with some of the criticisms that have been made about the administrative costs of running training boards. I have been very impressed by the amount of money spent by the boards in Scotland, but I wonder how much of it might have been saved had there been better co-ordination and a better look at the whole question rather than simply at the problem in a given industry. It is rather a pity that we could not have had a more general debate on the work of training boards. Even though we might not have been able to make a judgment on all their work, we might have been able to see where they are going and, if they were going wrong, to say something which would have put them on the right path.
There is much criticism of training boards. Strangely enough, it is not so much of the levy and the grant but rather that they are providing only very narrow ranges of training. Their argument is that they must make a start, and that they are starting on the craft side and can then move on to the others. But the Act has been in operation for nearly six years, and the Engineering Training Board, for example, has really only moved on the craft technician side. It is not doing anything in commercial training. I do not want to single out one board, but that is a good instance. It is not doing much in the training of machine operatives and other workmen loosely termed "semi-skilled". As I have often tried to point out, that term describes not the job but the rate paid for it.

Mr. Emery: I am certain that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House. I accept that he may rightly be critical of some of the activities of the Engineering Training Board and other training boards, but, because I serve on the Management Training and Development Committee of the Central Training Council, I know that he is not correct in trying to suggest that the training boards are doing nothing, or even very little, on the management or commercial side of training. There is a considerable amount being done which people often do not know about.

Mr. Robertson: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am really speaking about what is happening in Scotland. Apart from that undertaken by the Shipbuilding Industry Training Board, commercial training by training boards in Scotland amounts to nil. I have looked at the figures, and have been trying desperately to find out whether any work of this kind is being done. That is one of the facts that has emerged.
It may be that in other parts of the country some work is being done, I do not know. For obvious reasons I have had to confine my investigations to Scotland. I would not wish so early after the introduction of the Industrial Training Act to be very critical of any training board. I know that they are trying to do a good job. However, there are indications of an inflexibility that will not do us any good. I am always hearing it said that the training in industry pre-war was bad and that today it is good. I do not believe this. I believe that certain pre-war training was better than anything taking place under any other system since.
I can only speak for myself. I had a full range of training that will not now be given. A person cannot now train as a fitter and go through all the range of skills, on the grinding machine, the work bench, right through into the blacksmith's shop. Now a person has to pick a trade and be a tiny bit of a craftsman. It is far too rigid. There are still places where men with a great range of skills are needed. I am still of the opinion that this is the best kind of training in the long run.
The tendency, even with training boards, is for industry to train for its immediate needs. There is no possibility of manpower forecasting having any immediate effect. Industry will train for what it needs today, not five years from now. Training is geared to the industry, not to the individual and not to the needs of the country in 10 years' time. We will not train for what might happen in five or 10 years from now; we will train today for what is needed today. This is wrong.
We need some kind of manpower forecasting and we need to be able to forecast the shape of industry, the kind of jobs that will arise, the kind of crafts and skills that will be needed and not


only the numbers, but the quality of the skill. We should be training people towards that, regardless of whether they are needed in industry now. No training is ever wasted. I remember clearly when I began as an apprentice in the tool room, the foreman—we did not think much of him at the time but I have thought a great deal of him since—used to say, "There is a field marshal's baton in every tool box." He meant that we could get promotion, into the drawing office, even become a planning engineer and who knows, one or more of us could become managers of a factory. It is not so today. If someone decides to be a craftsman, a technician or a draughtsman then that is it. We have the law of the Medes and the Persians and a person cannot cross from one position to another.
Perhaps that is a little exaggerated; it still happens, I know, but it is becoming increasingly difficult. Not very long ago, in my lifetime, it was quite the done thing for a considerable number of apprentices to go on to a fourth year and to take S2 in Scotland or O.N.C. or H.N.C. and even to go on to take a degree, through industry. That was in the Royal Technical College in Glasgow. That Group 2 has now been closed and it is exceedingly difficult for anyone starting as an apprentice to go beyond that, and certainly difficult for them to take a degree.
This is wrong and it is one of the negative sides of industrial training. I hope that at some time we will have a better opportunity—not a little Bill like this—for a real discussion and that we will go into this more fully, discussing the problems, the trends and what should be done. Having said all of that, having made my criticisms, let me say this: surely to goodness we have better training today than we have ever had. Let us correct the faults where we see them, but let us not be too critical of training boards.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I want simply to protest against the imposition, which is made possible by order under this Bill, of a tax or levy on members' clubs; that is to say, upon many of the large golf, sailing and other social clubs not only in London but throughout the country. The Bill does

this by the old legislative device of pretending that something that clearly means one thing really means another. It is known technically as the "cat means dog" device.
The scope of the original Act was to raise a levy for training from those "engaged in the activities of industry or commerce", as the Minister said in moving the Second Reading. Private households and clubs are, clearly, not engaged in industry or commerce. Clubs are really only extensions of private households, organised on a communal, but still essentially private, basis. When this proposition, manifestly enshrined in the original Act, is unheld by the courts right up to the House of Lord, along comes the Minister and introduces a "cat means dog" Bill to say that private members' clubs which are not engaged in industry and commerce are engaged in industry and commerce. I do not think that the House should accept this.
There are many other things in the Bill, and to them I do not take any objection. At this stage I am concerned only to identify this one grievance, which we may be able to remedy in Committee by an Amendment to exclude members' clubs from the operation of the Measure. We should do this for three reasons. First, I do not believe that the inclusion of members' clubs is really worth it. Quite apart from inclusion being semantically indefensible, I do not think it is worth it in terms of cash. Very small sums, acquired at considerable administrative effort, are involved for the training board. But to some of the clubs, and many are in serious difficulties, these sums are very large sums; and they will be larger still, because it will be 3 per cent. of the wages bill before we are very much older.
Secondly, there cannot be a great deal of advantage from the point of view of the hotel and catering industry in bringing these private members' clubs into the Bill because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) has pointed out, very few of those who are employed as club servants of one kind or another move into, or are likely to move into, the hotel and catering industry.
Thirdly, there is the consideration that there is a nasty element of bureaucratic spite and vindictiveness in the Bill as it applies to private members' clubs. The


explanation is that the court case which precipitated the necessity for the whole of this Bill was brought by a private members' club.
The private members' club won its case, and, naturally enough, when the Minister saw the repercussions of the judgment, which excluded from the Act many other activities which he might much more reasonably have assumed to have been included in the Act, he decided to remedy the exclusion. Then he, or his Department, circularised private members' clubs with a memorandum about his intentions. I should like to draw the attention of the House to this memorandum because it reveals very clearly, as I see it, this element of rather distasteful vindictiveness. The memorandum was sent under cover of a confidential letter from the Department dated 6th November. In paragraph 4 there is a list of the activities which the new Bill would, because of the judgment, feel obliged to bring into the ambit of the old Act.
The memorandum refers to (a) local authorities and so on, (b) river authorities, (c) harbour authorities, and then successively to marketing boards, sea defence commissions, B.B.C., etc., friendly societies, industrial and provident societies, the Corporation of Lloyds, stock and commodity exchanges, schools and other educational institutions, and then, right at the end, item (k), members' clubs, which are absolutely negligible in terms of the percentage of the levy affected and not at all typical in respect of labour or staff employed, but banged in there with the obviously spiteful vindictive suggestion, "Do not think you are getting away with this. You precipitated all this trouble, and now we are going to make you jump."
I do not feel that this is altogether agreeable. The Minister really ought to think again whether, although private member's clubs precipitated the Peed for the Bill, and although we might well accept the other parts of the Bill on the basis on which it has been argued by the Minister, it is really necessary to take it out of members' clubs as he is proposing to do. I do not ask the Minister to give us any drastic or firm undertaking at the moment. I just ask him to keep an open mind on this matter,

and to entertain sympathetically Amendments which may be forthcoming on the point when we consider it in Committee.

6.13 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Probert: Unlike the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), I say with respect that I certainly welcome this Bill for the inclusion of a certain item, not the one to which he has referred.
I speak with many years of experience in local government service as an officer. For many years I experienced the vicissitudes of attempting to train myself in the service through voluntary efforts and with the assistance of other ad hoc bodies set up by various professional institutions—the Institution of Municipal Treasurers and Accountants, the Institution of Municipal Engineers and Surveyors, and so on. Often on a Friday night, very tired, I would have to travel to Cardiff to attend a lecture, a very able one, very educational, provided by these professional institutions. But what it amounted to in the end was that the education of the local government officer was dependent on the initiative of the local government officer himself. There is nothing wrong with that—it is much to be desired—but I feel that we should add to that initiative by the provision in Clause 1 (1) (b) of the Bill, bringing local authorities into this venture.
I would certainly encourage local authorities to come within the ambit of the Bill. Many local authorities are providing excellent facilities, but here again too much is left to the individual local authority. Let us face it; there are certain local authorities which are far too small to provide the education which is needed for their local offices. As was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson), the provision is so uneven that the paradoxical situation arises that we have in those smaller local authorities professional officers who have received their training through the provision of other local authorities; and smaller local authorities are benefiting although for various reasons they are not contributing anything to the education of their own local government staff.
I believe, therefore, that it is time that local authorities themselves were provided with the statutory powers necessary to provide the training boards. I


appreciate what has been said by a spokesman on the benches opposite but I speak with experience as a local government officer. I hope, therefore, that after consideration of this provision in the Bill local authorities will themselves welcome it, because there are going to be very important changes in the local government sphere, however long delayed they may be in coming, and I feel that statutory boards must be provided for the training of local government officers.

6.16 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell: I start by giving a welcome to the Bill and particularly to the proposal to extend industrial training to employers and the self-employed. There is a great need for this, particularly in the field of the small businessman, and for that reason it is to be welcomed. I only hope that it can be done without too much form-filling so that there is still time left for training for the small businessman whose attention is taken up, almost full time, in running his business.
Secondly, I fully agree with the need for industrial training and greatly welcomed the spirit behind the original Bill; but I cannot for the life of me see why it is that Government Departments are excluded. I intervened earlier and the Minister was kind enough to confirm that Government Departments continue to be excluded. He said that this was an enabling Bill. If it is an enabling Bill, why cannot it also enable the Minister to include Government employees where this is appropriate? The hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) drew attention to a justified need for including local government employees within the scope of training boards. If that is right, how can we differentiate for national Government employees and say this is wrong?
The whole principle behind the original Act was that we should not have a situation in which certain employers within an industry spent money on training while other employers spent nothing and gained the benefit of the outlay by the employers who did spend. Here we have precisely that situation being recreated in relation to Government employees. The case which was taken up to the House of Lords concerned the hotel and catering industry, which is one of the main reasons for this Bill. Why should not there be the same expenditure on the training of

Government employees in Government canteens and places of that kind as in the private restaurants round the corner which are in competition with them?
It seems to me that there is something wrong there, and I would urge the Minister to look carefully at the Bill to see why Government Departments should not be brought into line with other employers. At the same time I have some uncertainty whether non-profit-making bodies should have been brought into the Bill, but I am very relieved to have the assurance that has been given, curiously, from the Conservative Front Bench, that there is a £4,000 wage bill cut-off so that many of the smaller clubs who feared they were to be caught by these proposals will be exempted under the catering training board levy regulations.
My main criticism is that the Government have failed to grasp the opportunity that getting into the legislative queue has given them for clearing up anomalies which have now become apparent in our training board system and for curbing some of the wilder schemes of training for training's sake instead of for industry's benefit, for performance and profit, which should be the real reasons for it.
I do not suggest that we should go so far as to have detailed Ministerial interference, but I wonder whether the Minister has considered the idea of Ministerial circulars to the training boards in the same way as the Minister of Education sends out circulars to the local authorities which administer the education service, giving them guidance on some of the matters to which perhaps they ought to pay more attention and some of the pitfalls of which they should beware.
I doubt very much whether it is worth while providing for a levy system and the application of training boards in the case of highly specialised employment. I give mushroom growers as an example. Mushroom growing is a skilled and specialised field of production which very few people know how to carry out. When the mushroom industry has a training board applied to it, what will the board have to do? It will collect the money from the unfortunate growers and then have to say to itself, "Strewth! We do not know anything at all about growing mushrooms, so we cannot teach the mushroom growers how to do it, and, therefore, we shall have to spend some money


on sending somebody to the mushroom growers to be taught how to grow mushrooms so that he can go back and tell the mushroom growers how to grow them." For an example of arrant nonsense, that takes some beating. I believe there is a strong case for exempting the small specialised producer.

Mr. Iremonger: Would my hon. Friend add steeplejacks in considering that question?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend has drawn attention to another specialised field. There will be others known to hon. Members.
There is also perhaps a case for having a look at the way in which levies are assessed, because the situation has now arisen where the business profits of close company directors are very often included in the field of levies. I declare what interest I have here since I am associated with a company in this field, but if I have an interest it is also that I have some knowledge of what happens.
There is a curious situation that under the close company legislation a company is forced to distribute 60 per cent. of its profits. If it has any income from rents and that income is taken out by way of—as in most small businesses is the case—the salary of the managing director, that goes in for levy. I cannot imagine that that was meant to be the thinking behind the training board system, that small companies should have to pay levy on their compulsory distribution of profits. That is another anomaly which should have been looked at.
Then there is the whole question of the relative value of "on-the-job" and "off-the-job" training and the cost benefit which comes from each of them. I am sure that the Minister will have seen the fascinating study by Thomas Markson and Jones which was reported in the British Journal of Industrial Relations last July. That very clearly indicated the very much greater cost benefit which is obtainable from "on-the-job" training as opposed to "off-the-jobs" training. Again, that is another example of the sort of thing where something could be gained from Ministerial circulars to the boards giving them guid-

ance on what will work successfully and what will not work.
I spoke earlier of training running wild and training for training's sake. I give the utmost praise to one training board—the Food, Drink and Tobacco Industry Training Board. Here we have a board which has had the common sense to avoid what so many other boards have done; that is, to send out to businesses in the industry a demand for money, then to keep the money for the best part of 12 months and then pay it back in dribs and drabs at the end, according to various systems and schemes. This training board has done a netting operation so that those involved in the industry only have to pay at the end of the year the net amount for which they have a liability. That is an enormously more sensible approach than that adopted by many of the other boards and something which could well be drawn to the attention of other boards as a way of doing it. This board has done a good deal to make firms do for themselves what some other boards have insisted they should do for them.
I understand that plans are at an advanced stage for a consultancy service by the Manpower Research Unit of the Department of Employment and Productivity for the training boards. I have great reservations about that. The former Minister of Public Building and Works drew attention earlier this afternoon to the great danger of making projections of employment requirements for five or ten years hence on the basis of statistics which may or may not be absolutely accurate when they are fed into the computer. A constituent of mine has sent me one of the inquiries he has received from the manpower unit to which I referred. I will quote from it because I think it is an illustration of the dangers into which one can fall.
The purpose of the inquiry is to compare the numbers currently employed in various occupations within the hotel industry with a realistic estimate—and I repeat "realistic"—of the numbers needed in five years time. Let us look at some of the questions.
On banquetting staff the document asks:
If you cater for banquets and conferences, etc., how many casual staff are normally engaged in the following occupations; waiters, wine waiters, wine butlers, banquetting porters, cloakroom attendants and washers up.


Of course the answer depends entirely on the size of the conferences. Therefore whatever statistics are obtained from that would be sheer nonsense.
The document goes on to ask about the future level of business and asks:
What do you think is the growth or reduction of your activities in the next five years?
If somebody would tell the unfortunate hoteliers whether we shall have a Conservative Government or a Labour Government, whether we shall have selective employment tax, whether we shall have 3 per cent. mortgages, as promised on one occasion, and from what degree of inflation the economy will be suffering and whether there will be another devaluation, making it attractive for Americans to come here on holiday, perhaps some reasonable, sensible answer might be given to this sort of inquiry. But, alas, no such guidance is given.
Then the receivers of the document are asked to state, whether they use now, or whether they expect to use in five years' time, such things as the following catering equipment:
Dishwashers, pan handlers and stainless steel
as well as the following portion controlled foods:
Butter, preserves, and pre-portioned meat; frozen or dehydrated vegetables and pie fillings, pudding mixes and sauce mixtures.
What nonsense! How can one possibly project anything sensible out of this sort of thing.
I quote further:
Please take the personal services provided and state the main occupation of the staff providing the services—early morning tea, newspapers, shoe-cleaning, hot water bottles and personal laundry operating.
I could quote on but it would only make the House weep at some of the nonsense which is included in the document.
At the end we come to the prize, the 64,000 dollar question. Gilbert and Sullivan could not have done better. They say:
Future staffing estimates. Taking into account all that you have said in answer to the questions above, please consider fully your estimates of the total staff likely to be needed in the various departments in five years time.
That would be nonsense from any association.
I ask the House to look at this. I have not even started on it. There are no fewer than 11 foolscap pages, and there is this gem on the front page:
Comprehensive and detailed replies to the questions will be welcome. Please answer freely—on separate sheets of paper if you need more space.
If there is to be an association between the training boards and this sort of activity, I hope that it will be looked at extremely closely, indeed.
I regret that the Government have not taken the opportunity on this occasion, and with this Bill, to look more closely at the relationship between industrial training boards and Government training centres, because there must be a considerable case for saying that some of the training boards ought to be using the services provided by Government training centres, and perhaps to be paying for some of the services provided by them for training and retraining people to enter into the scope of the industrial training boards industries. I hope that the Government have done some more constructive thinking on this. If they have, I regret that the results have not been included in this legislation.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. Peter Emery: I do not wish to strike a discordant note as I begin to address the House, but I must say that I am critical of the Government for introducing the Bill at this moment. It is a little strange that the Government, following a recommendation from the House, having set up a committee to examine the work of the Central Training Council and the way in which it ties in with industrial training boards, have not waited for that committee's report to be considered by the public before going ahead with this short Measure to take extra powers to deal with the Industrial Training Act.
That criticism is reinforced by what I consider to be a most unusual fact, namely, that in a Bill of only two main Clauses, one of which deals with financial matters, and the other with the Short Title, the Minister has announced that in Committee he will introduce two new Clauses. We therefore start with the proposition that the Bill will be enlarged by 100 per cent. merely by a statement of the Minister's intention to do something in Committee.

Mr. Dell: One new Clause doing at least two new things.

Mr. Emery: I accept the immense difference between one new Clause doing two things, and two new Clauses doing two things, the same things. I accept that instead of a 100 per cent. increase there is to be only a 50 per cent. increase in the number of new Clauses. I am sorry that the Government have not seen fit to wait until the Cousins Committee's report has been discussed and is known to us all.
It is right and proper that it should be known that the structure of industrial training was set up by a Conservative Act and by a Conservative Government. I took exception to the speech of the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), because, in saying that the Conservative Government had been slow in introducing the necessary Measure during the late 'fifties and early 'sixties, he omitted to mention the opposition which came from many trade union leaders to the provisions of the Bill, and indeed their feeling that it was a considerable attack on the control which trade unions had over their own industrial training. I am delighted that that has not proved to be the case, but let us not rewrite history when trying to take credit for something, or to hit the other side.
With that Act, and with the work done by the Government in setting up, I think, 27 industrial training boards, we in this country have the finest structure for industrial training anywhere in the world, including the United States of America. I hope we can ensure that we make the best use of that structure, and that it is made as efficient as is humanly possible.
I am concerned about this measure because I think that I am the only M.P. to be appointed to any of the Central Training Council's committees. This happened during the short sabbatical that I had from this place, when the then Minister of Labour saw fit to use some of my knowledge by appointing me to the Management, Development and Training Committee.
It seems to me that the effects of the 1964 Act, of the action which can be taken under it, and of the action which can be taken by the industrial training boards, have been under-estimated. One has to realise that about £400 million has

already been subscribed by way of levy to these Industrial Training boards. That is a devil of a lot of money for any form of education, and particularly so when it is derived by an extra levy on industry to deal with industrial training.
One matter with which I should like the Minister to deal is the variation in the methods of operation of the various boards. The amount of levy raised by each board varies considerably, from 2·5 per cent. to as low as 0·025 per cent. of total emoluments. When it comes to levies related to the numbers employed, the range is £23 10s. to £3 10s. per head. It is therefore obvious that the extent to which grants can be used as an incentive for training will depend to a considerable extent on the amount of money that is available for grant.
The Minister has been very forthcoming about promising to introduce new Clauses, and there is one matter about which I hope he will do something before the Bill leaves Committee. I am thinking of the variation in the powers in operating the different boards. The work of the boards over the last four and a half years has shown them to have an almost completely autonomous status, and this has sometimes not been in the best interests of training, particularly management training, which is of considerable concern to me. One of the difficulties is that the boards have sometimes not been willing to take advice, both educational and professional, or find out what knowledge exists. Too many boards have set out with a view to inventing the wheel all over again. It has been a waste of time, effort and money. This is a criticism which has been made very widely and one which I would have hoped we might have been able to get over by now.
The problem is that because of the entirely independent status which the law allows the I.T.B.s, any directional guidance can be shrugged off and need in no way apply unless the Minister uses the terribly heavy-handed authority of a directive. No Minister of either party wishes particularly to go to that length. Therefore I wonder whether we ought not to consider, before the Bill comes back to the House again, putting into it a certain power for the Central Training Council to undertake co-ordinating action between the industrial training boards.
The fees and allowances paid by different training boards vary considerably. One of the problems and criticisms that arise in industry is that it becomes quite apparent that one course is applicable and accepted in one industry but not in another as regards grant payment. In the same way, it is quite evident that the amount of fees refunded varies from board to board from 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. to 100 per cent. of the actual costs. The refund of subsistence and travel expenses also varies. This is related to salary by some boards; some go up to £6 a day, and some make a full refund. When people are away for a long course, the amount of refund of salary depends on the board; some will get 50 per cent., some 100 per cent. and others only £15 a day.
These anomalies must attract considerable criticism, particularly when in the same industries certain people covered by one industrial training board get a maximum allowance while others in the same part of the organisation qualify only for a lower amount. So, of course, people begin to be critical of the training boards. While it has been quite evident from the work of the Central Training Council that it has tried to reduce these anomalies, they still exist. Therefore, I wonder if the Minister could find some method of giving powers to the Central Training Council to set a pattern which could be accepted by all the boards. Perhaps a minimum standard is required, and boards could go above it if they wished, but I believe that this co-ordinating factor is of the greatest importance.
Members of the Consultative Council of Professional Management Organisations, which I happen to serve as chairman, are particularly concerned that some of the industrial training boards are setting their own standards in management training. An example, which I can document if the Minister wishes, is that a certain industrial training board was setting the level of training necessary for personnel officers within that industry. It had not even bothered to consult the Institute of Personnel Management, and in the view of that institute certain of the standards set were entirely out of date and irrelevant and ought to have been brought up to date and up to modern practice. Because the power of the board is absolute, it need take no notice of

the recommendations that may be made by the C.C.P.M.O. or the Institute of Personnel Management.
In the same way, it is terribly important that in setting the educational criteria for training the industrial training boards should consult to a greater extent than, in my judgment, they have done so far. These consultations should cover educational centres, the technical colleges, the universities, where this applies, and the professional bodies, where they exist.
I feel, therefore, that there is great scope for improvement in the Act. That does not mean that I am being immensely critical of the Bill, but it is quite obvious that since the Act has now been operating for six years we want there to be an overall new look to find out the methods by which it can be improved. I am very sorry that the Government are trying to jump the gun on this and go forward with a very piffling little Bill to get over certain legal aspects of problems which could quite easily have waited for 12 months, when one complete bit of legislation could have dealt with the whole matter.
There are three other minor points to which I hope the Minister will give some attention. Will he look at the problem of the industrial training boards in connection with the validation of courses? This varies from board to board. Some take one line of action and others take another. Should there not be some attempt to get a standard procedure?
In the same way, is there not a major need for the Central Training Council at this stage to look at the effectiveness of the different appraisal systems which have been brought into operation by the various industrial training boards? Surely it would be better and make for much better understanding between industry and Government and the I.T.B.s if there could be one system of appraisal instead of a variety of systems.
There is another major problem to which the industrial training boards have not turned their minds, although this does not diminish the problem in any way. It is the problem of the requirements for the training of older managers and more mature executives, or older workmen and more mature craftsmen


who are suddenly replaced, whether because of a take-over or because of new methods in technology. These people sometimes have another 10 or 15 years' excellent service to give to industry and the community, and very little thought is given at the moment by the industrial training boards to dealing with upgrading this section of the community. I believe that it would be to the benefit of industry and the economy as a whole to give some thought to this problem so that these people, instead of being brushed aside, may have the proper continual training to keep them up to date and effective within the meaning of the Act.
I come lastly to a specific point. I am delighted to see that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert) has just returned, because he is a considerable expert on the matter of local government officers. I find myself in some difficulty, having listened to what he had to say, because the A.M.C. and the County Councils Association are very much of the view that the powers given under the Bill should not be used to form a local government I.T.B. I do not have to remind the hon. Member that a voluntary local government training board already exists, and the A.M.C. and the County Councils Association feel that it is doing a very adequate job. They hope that the Government will leave it alone and not take some of the classifications which now fall under the local government training board to be covered by other industrial training boards not concerned with local government. This might well happen if the Minister used the powers under this Act to formulate a local government industrial training board.

Mr. Probert: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman has said, but my point was that there are recalcitrant local authorities which, if this became a statutory provision, would have to play their part. Unfortunately, too many local authorities now are not playing their part in this voluntary effort.

Mr. Emery: I find that point most interesting. My information was that the recalcitrant local authorities were few. Will the Minister give an assurance—whih I believe he said might be

forthcoming—that he will not use the powers to set up a local government industrial training board? Will he also help the House by giving the figures, if such exist, of recalcitrant, or perhaps unco-operative, local authorities which have not yet entered the scheme?

Mr. Dell: I think about 75 per cent. of the local authorities provide about 92 per cent. of the total levy.

Mr. Emery: That answers the question immediately. Perhaps the Minister will now turn his mind to the assurance for which I asked.
This was a golden opportunity for the Government to have attempted to take industrial training a full step forward, whereas the Bill is just a little shuffle. The Government should have waited for the report of the Cousins Committee. Has the Minister received the main recommendations of the Cousins Committee? If he has not, will the report be held up because of the illness of the chairman? If so, for how long will it be held up, and is the Minister taking steps to have the extensive work which has already been carried out brought to his attention? Will he ensure that the report is published? It is essential that the House, industry, the C.B.I. and the industrial training boards should have this important report available. With all those questions, I wish the Bill success.

6.53 p.m.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: My right hon. Friend in his preliminary remarks wisely referred to the record. The Bill represents a small step in the direction of extra training, in the light of the potential and of the record so far. It is estimated that the grant and loan powers under Section 5 of the 1964 Act of £50 million will be increased under the Bill by £20,000. This shows how small is the step, but it is no reason for belittling the Bill. My right hon. Friend must have made an evaluation, and we have already had evidence of this in his remarks about the voluntary local authorities training board. If it is proper to have statutory bodies over a wide range of training boards to enable us to get our teeth into the problem of the essential need for training, why should local authorities be excluded? Local authorities are one of the largest spending


powers in the country and have under their wing many people with differing skills, professional and manual.
The voluntary bodies have an excellent and encouraging record, and intervention might be an invitation to criticism, but they would not be unhappy with a statutory requirement carrying with it financial support to enable them to enlarge their area of activity beyond the 92 per cent. and bring within their ambit the few recalcitrant authorities. On that count alone I feel that there should be a statutory requirement upon local authorities.
Although it is my normal practice to sit here throughout a debate, I have unfortunately had to be absent for a short time, but one or two contributions which I have heard were of a highly critical nature. Both parties can take credit for supporting the principle of industrial training boards, but, in spite of the large number of industrial training boards which have been created in the past six years involving so many people and skills, and the great problem of organising for training, it is early days for us to be able to make a proper evaluation. It is a little premature to be over-critical of the people who have worked so hard on the boards to try to bring to acceptable standards the level of training in certain industries. I hope that the industrial training boards will be encouraged that the criticisms are mainly concerned with ensuring that the training boards shall be better than they are now and are an acknowledgement that they have done excellent work during their short existence.
I am concerned about many things which appear not to have been done. I do not profess any expertise here, but in moving around the country and listening to industrialists and trade union organisers I have noticed certain unhappy rumblings about industrial training boards. These may arise out of clashes of personality or out of the stringencies of training programmes impinging upon demands for levies and so on. I speak as a layman, and this may possibly be an exaggeration of what these rumblings mean. Nevertheless, there is concern about this matter. It might not be unreasonable to ask the industrial training board chairmen and the officials responsible for drawing up training programmes

to examine certain matters which do not appear to be fully attended to.
Reference has been made to the older people in work. I have many times in this House raised the matter of the over-45s who comprise a forgotten section of the working community. In my part of the world 45 per cent. of the unemployed are over the age of 45 and do not appear to be getting a fair crack of the whip in job opportunities or from the point of view of training in industry. Therefore, I hope that the training boards will look at this very reliable section of the working population to see what can be done. The Government training centres and other training establishments should take the opportunity to examine whether it would be worth while to take on to their books for training men in this age group in order to help them in any way they can and to open up job opportunities.
Sometimes when discussing training matters we tend to forget the problems of the disabled. I do not wish to be accused of introducing an emotional note into this debate which might be misinterpreted, but certainly the more I meet disabled people the more I am astonished to discover their adaptability in so many ways. I would ask the chairmen and officers of industrial training boards and those who are responsible for supervising Government training centres to see that there is a place in industry for disabled people. I believe that the principal employers should take on their books a quota of disabled who could be given training.
There is a further category of people who because of their physical condition are permanently engaged in light work. In the precision engineering industry, where there are automation and semi-automation processes, I am sure that these categories of light work could be reexamined from a training point of view.
In my part of the world there is a great need to keep up the momentum of training, and we are very pleased indeed with the Government's record so far. The economy of the Northern Region cannot be resuscitated unless we pay due regard to this aspect. I am satisfied that during the past five years there has been a real break-through in this matter. Nevertheless, I feel that some levels of training are set far too low. The population of the country is now far more


intelligent, and its ability to start training at higher levels is an accepted fact. Could not the training programmes be studied again to see if we are getting the best out of the time and money spent?
I should like my hon. Friend to look at one matter, and if he cannot reply tonight I hope that he will be able to look at this point soon. This involves a matter in my constituency that was brought to my attention recently when I was discussing training problems with the chairman of the construction industrial training board and several members of the education committee. Concern was expressed about the difficulty in getting started on the industrial training wing of the new College of Further Education in Hartlepool. It was suggested that the delay in beginning construction on this scheme arose through difficulty in getting a decision from my hon. Friend's Department or another Department. I hope that this point can be looked at since we in the Hartlepools become very unhappy if such schemes are unnecessarily delayed. I am sure that if there is any delay my hon. Friend will be the first to jump on the problem to see who is responsible for not letting us get on with this substantial wing.
I am sorry to bring in this constituency matter, but we feel that it is very important. If my hon. Friend cannot answer me tonight on this point, I hope that he will take note of it and in due course let me know the answer.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Scott: This has been a wide-ranging debate, and I share some of the puzzlement expressed on both sides of the House that we are debating this tiny Bill when the time is surely ripe for a full-scale look at the whole problem of training, at the end of which there could then be a substantial Bill.
I am sure all those who have participated in the debate feel satisfaction with the achievements of industrial training over the last five years. A summary of the view taken by the House today is that although we are pleased with the situation, we are far from complacent. At times during my remarks I shall criticise some aspects of training, but I am only too willing to pay tribute to the Central Training Council and to all the boards

which have done so much in such a short time to improve the quantity and quality of training in Britain.
The situation in some of the engineering industries in certain scarce skills is even worse than it was two years ago. It cannot even by said that the present level of the advance, let alone what has been achieved, is sufficient to solve the many manpower problems in industry.
I should like to take up the point about manpower forecasting made by the right hon. Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice). There are immense dangers inherent in forecasting, as my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) made clear, and when forecasts are based on a ludicrously bureaucratic system such as he outlined there are real dangers. When people are faced with an 11-page foolscap form they tend to take it lightheartedly, and when that information is fed into a computer the whole exercise becomes meaningless. I hope that the new Institute of Manpower Studies will do something to draw together the information that is available about manpower forecasting and will try to develop improved techniques for collecting, collating and using information.
It would appear from the form referred to by my hon. Friend that firms are invited to project their present mixes of manpower five years ahead, and those are used as the bases for the forecasts. All too often, that sort of complex and tedious exercise is carried out at a very junior level in the firms concerned, with the result that the ultimate output is virtually valueless. In my view, it would be mistaken to base too many of our training plans on manpower forecasts while they are in their present infancy. We should concentrate on geting as much flexibility and as much ability to meet new situations as possible into industrial training, rather than tying ourselves to any manpower forecasts which come out of the system.
I want to make a few brief general points about industrial training which should have been covered in a Bill at this time and will have to be tackled in the very near future. Mention has been made of the Government's training programme. I doubt very much whether it should remain a completely separate stream of training. In my view, it should be incorporated into the main work of the industrial training boards.
There are several questions which arise on the Government training centres programme. My understanding is that they are still only about 70 per cent. filled at the moment. That is a waste of important and useful resources. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us a little about the criteria used when deciding what courses are to be provided at Government training centres. One hears it suggested sometimes that it is the availability of staff to provide the courses, rather than a real need for the people who are to be turned out by the courses, which is an important determining factor.
Another important question concerns the present success in placing the trainees from Government training centres. The right hon. Member for East Ham, North spoke of the resistance from some of the craft unions to the patterns of training in Government training centres, and we know of trade union resistance to some of the trainees, who are branded as dilutees by certain sections of the trade union movement. We should like to know how much resistance is still met in efforts to place trainees and how relevant they find the skills which they have acquired in Government training centres to the obtaining of jobs once they leave.
I take issue with the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. John Robertson) on the importance and relevance of apprenticeships. I do not believe that we shall get any sense in our industrial training until we turn our backs on a traditional apprenticeship pattern across a wide range of industry. Outside this House, I earn my living in the printing industry. In that and many other industries, technical advances and changes in the skills which are necessary occur at such a rapid rate that it is nonsense to train a man for five or six years at the beginning of his working life and imagine that that will stand him in good stead until he retires. Instead, training should be done in short, sharp periods at the beginning and at different stages of his working life if he is to be kept up to date. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on the progress of the boards in overcoming this sort of inertia.
My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) touched on the experience in the United States. We can learn a great deal from the United States in terms of the use to which part-time

training facilities are put. In saying that, I mean not only day release, where it has been disappointing to see a very slow growth, but also part-time training at evening classes, possibly leading on to the winning of scholarships or bursaries to enable men to take on full-time courses. I share with the hon. Member for Paisley the passion to link all stages of our industrial training programme as closely as possible with the general educational system, so making the very best use of it, and this is one way in which a closer link might be obtained.
I come now to two wider points. The first is that the Government should be further advanced in their thinking at this stage. I have a great deal of respect for the Minister of State, but his speech took us no further forward than that of his predecessor on 24th June, 1969, when he outlined the way in which training was going, the problems that we were up against, and made it clear that action would soon be necessary. In his speech today, the right hon. Gentleman went over the way in which training is going, pointed to the problems confronting us, and indicated that action will soon be necessary. In my view, the Government should give more attention to this and be ready in the near future with major proposals.
I have already paid tribute to the work of the industrial training boards. However, we in this House and the boards themselves would be making a great mistake if, like the right hon. Member for East Ham, North, we did not take seriously the growing criticism of the boards. The worst that could happen in industrial training would be for criticism to grow and for antagonism between the boards and those whom they are supposed to serve to develop.
There are real resentments in industry at some aspects of industrial training. Some boards seem to suffer from a lack of financial discipline. Firms resent the growth of paper work and bureaucracy and the inflexible attitude of some boards towards certain types of training. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton spoke about the validation of courses, and it occurs to me to wonder whether the onus of proof should not be shifted so that the board would have to show why it declined to approve a certain form of


training, rather than the employer having to show why it should be approved.
Firms also resent the way in which the levy-grant system operates strongly against the firm with a stable labour force. Such a firm is limited in the amount of training that it can carry out. The firm with a rapid turnover of people can always go on with training and continue to make a profit on its training account. The levy-grant system should be studied with a view to seeing whether anything can be done to tackle that problem.
The right hon. Member for East Ham, North made one of the few really party points when he criticised the Conservative Government's attitude towards training. I thought that I carried the House with me when I stressed the importance of the training boards, the unions and industry co-operating with one mind on the development of training. The welcoming attitude which exists now and existed in 1964 did not exist when the Carr Committee was set up in the 1950s. The Conservative Government had to overcome a great deal of resistance on both sides of industry to the new concept of training embodied in the 1964 Act.

Mr. Prentice: My complaint was that for several years they made no attempt to overcome that resistance. If they had given a lead sooner, we could have had an Industrial Training Act earlier and a good deal more training could have been effected.

Mr. Scott: One can go back for ever and a day on that line. But the Carr Committee, which was set up in 1958, began the process of overcoming this resistance which led to the 1964 Act. Without that co-operation it would have been impossible to have the rapid advance in industrial training that we have had over the last five years.

Mr. Prentice: The Carr Committee did not begin to foreshadow a change. Its report was putting a seal of approval upon arrangements within industry that were demonstrably not measuring up to what was needed. It was several years later that the Government produced a White Paper heralding the Industrial Training Act.

Mr. Scott: Any objective assessment of the history of industrial training will show that the Carr Committee made a major start in the train of thought that led to the 1964 Act.
I turn now to points on the Bill. First, the Local Authority Board. I take the points made by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Probert), on which my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton has already taken issue with him. I should think that in a situation where a voluntary training board is raising 92 per cent. of the levy that a statutory board could raise and is already carrying out first-class work, it should be given a fair chance to see whether it can work as effectively, or even more effectively, than statutory boards before it is superseded. I should not want the Government to rush into a precipitate formation of a statutory board before giving a voluntary board a fair chance to show its paces.

Mr. Probert: I accept the premise that the hon. Gentleman has put forward. If the voluntary board could succeed in reaching 100 per cent. I should be the last to object. But if 8 per cent.—it is not 8 per cent. numerically; this is on the financial side—persists in coming out, then some statutory provision must be put in.

Mr. Scott: That is a fair point. I am merely asking for time to see whether it can improve those figures.
I should like to make one point relevant to the Bill, but which has wider implications. The Government have, once again, exempted Crown employees from its provisions. Yesterday, talking about equal pay, we saw how the Government had exempted the Armed Forces from the provisions of that Bill. I remember in the debates on the Race Relations Bill two years ago how my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) had to force the Government, aided by a revolt of hon. Gentlemen opposite, to accept that that Bill should apply to the Government.
There is a real and important psychological point here. If the Government are placing burdens on industry and are asking it to co-operate and work with them in this scheme, they should not opt out by placing burdens on others which they are not prepared to accept themselves.
I welcome the extension of the scheme to employers and to the self-employed. My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger) raised several points on members' clubs. I take his point about the increasing burdens that these clubs have suffered. They are, after all, still reeling from the effects of S.E.T. They are non-profit making organisations. They are, in a real sense, private bodies and they are now, under the Bill, to be considered as engaged in industry or commerce. I find it difficult to see any point of principle upon which we could distinguish between the larger clubs and the hotels and restaurants with which they are in competition, for they are essentially providing the same services—food, drink and beds. I would rather the board raised the minimum payroll level which would exempt all but the largest clubs from the levy-grant system. There might even be a case—I ask the Minister to consider this when we are in Committee—for having a slightly higher limit on payroll exemption for members' clubs. I hope that the Minister will agree that they are, if not of a completely different kind, at least in a slightly different category from organisations which are truly engaged in industry and commerce. It must be pointed out that if the clubs are called upon to pay the levy, then, like everybody else, they will be eligible for grants if they are engaging, as many of them are, in training.
The Bill makes some small advance in industrial training, but it is far from enough. As a nation we must begin to look at our total manpower policy and our approach to the mobility of our labour force which embraces not only training, but also redundancy payments, housing policy and matters of that kind, and try to create a more efficient market in labour in Britain. For what it is worth, I welcome the Bill, but it will not be long before we shall need further action in industrial training.

7.26 p.m.

Mr. Dell: With the permission of the House I will reply to the debate.
We have had an interesting general debate on industrial training. I hope, as a result, that the Bill will get a Second Reading. Much of what has been said has been critical of the industrial training system as it has developed, but there is general agreement that there have been considerable advances since the 1964 Act.
The object of the introductory passages in my opening speech was to indicate that I accept that there are problems about which it is necessary for us to think very seriously. This, after all, was the reason for asking the Central Training Council to undertake its review. Nevertheless, I am glad that the House in general has accepted that considerable advances have been made both in the quantity and quality of training in this country.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Leadbitter) will accept that it is not an adequate measure of the Bill's importance that it may lead to £20,000-worth of additional expenditure out of the £50 million which is permitted under the 1964 Act. The Bill extends the coverage of the industrial training system by over 10 per cent. and introduces the possibility of including the employed and self-employed within the remit of the industrial training boards.
The hon. Member for Paddington, South (Mr. Scott) emphasised the urgency of undertaking any necessary reforms of the system. The hon. Member for Honiton (Mr. Emery) suggested that we should have waited for the C.T.C. review report before legislating. However, there were certain points on which we knew we had to legislate and, if possible, legislate urgently. One was self-employment, because this is connected with the change in the system of financing the Agricultural Training Board. Another was to bring back within the scope of the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board those who had been removed from its scope by the judgment of the House of Lords. If we had not done this now it would have meant waiting for any further legislation that might arise from the C.T.C. review report. Therefore, it seemed sensible to introduce this Bill, which in no way prejudices anything which may be necessary as a result of that report.
I should have thought that it should also be remembered that much which will arise out of that report could be done by administrative measures. We were under some pressure from the Opposition Front Bench to go ahead with this legislation. When, at Question Time recently, I could not give a categorical assurance to the right hon. Member for Mitcham (Mr. R. Carr) that this


Bill would be introduced this Session, he seemed to deplore that. We have now introduced it, and it is worth while, although we are not legislating more widely, nor as I have said does it prejudice anything further which may be necessary.
The hon. Member for Honiton introduced an idea which is worth considering, and which I am sure will be considered by the Central Training Council Review Committee: that is, how far one should take central control of the activities of the training boards. He will also agree, I think, that introducing central control would be a very controversial proposition which should be discussed thoroughly with everyone affected. It would depart in a major respect from the philosophy of the Industrial Training Act, 1964. It is not wrong for that reason, but it is a highly controversial proposal. It does not seem necessary to delay this Bill until we have fully considered whatever the Central Training Council proposes. Does the hon. Member for Honiton wish to intervene?

Mr. Emery: Since the right hon. Member invites me to do so, I would only say that of course it will be controversial. Most of the arguments are already known. These are not facts which have not been discussed. The views of the C.B.I. and of the unions are well known. It does not mean that it has to be overall control: it needs only to be powers to co-ordinate in certain aspects. That is certainly within the considerable powers, if not of the Minister of State, certainly of the Minister.

Mr. Dell: I am always too ready to give way, and apparently I am beginning to give way even when hon. Members do not wish to intervene.
The sort of control which the hon. Gentleman now seems to be proposing could be done by administration and therefore is not a good reason for delaying action on the Bill. However, we shall see what the Central Training Council proposes and whether legislation is necessary as a result.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Dudley Smith) also criticised the inadequacy of the Bill in deal-

ing with certain major problems which he sees in the training board system, but he was not constructive in saying what should be done about it. At least the hon. Member for Honiton gave us a programme for greater central control, but the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington gave us no guidance as to whether he wants the Government, Parliament or the C.T.C. to exercise greater control. To that extent, his contribution to that part of the debate was less helpful. I certainly agree that we should find ways of keeping industries better informed of the activities of their boards. I also agree that we should ensure better co-ordination of the work of the boards, although a great deal is being done here which should not be ignored. But much of this can be done administratively; we will, I hope, be advancing along that line as a result of the report of the C.T.C.
But I must emphasise—this was the central point of the philosophy of the Industrial Training Act, introduced by hon. Members opposite—that responsibility is placed on the boards. Hon. Gentlemen opposite may criticise the bureaucracy of the boards and their financial administration, but that Act, under which we are operating, which was passed by hon. Gentlemen opposite, place responsibility fairly and squarely on the boards.
If they are now saying that that was wrong and that responsibility should be taken from the boards, that to that extent the links between the boards and industry should be broken in favour of more detailed central control by Government, as a means of avoiding the bureaucracy and the failure of financial administration which they detect and dislike, they should say so clearly.
The Government can give guidance, as can the C.T.C. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) asked whether we issued circulars. We are in regular communication with the boards through the assessors appointed by the Department of Employment and Productivity, through regular conferences with chief officers, during which such matters as we have debated today are discussed, and we issue guidance as necessary, often in the form of C.T.C. memoranda.
The lack of financial discipline which is complained of is properly debatable


in the House when levy orders are presented and the House can pray against them. No doubt if, in some cases, hon. Members think that there is a lack of financial discipline, they will pray against the relevant orders. It is a little unfortunate that this sort of accusation is made generally, when I suspect that hon. Members probably have in mind some limited examples which we cannot really debate today.
If there is a Prayer against an Order the other side of the case can be put. These boards are constituted according to the provisions of the Industrial Training Act, by employers, and by trade unions. We take the guidance of the relevant trade associations and unions in appointing people to the boards. It is a pity if it is to be said generally of such people, as appears to have been said by a number of hon. Members opposite, that they cannot exercise financial discipline or administer boards without unnecessary bureaucracy. The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington had a graphic phrase about industrialists on these boards "engaging in unnecessary and wasteful bureaucracy". At any rate, he will not recommend a Government of industrialists as a way of avoiding bureaucracy if he thinks that this is a fair description of what these boards have been doing.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Those are not really my words but those of a large number of industrialists about some boards. The right hon. Gentleman must have had a large amount of correspondence from a wide variety of people making just this sort of allegation.

Mr. Dell: I know that this sort of allegation is made; what I am saying is that it is a pity if this sort of allegation is made generally about boards. What hon. Members possibly may have in mind is particular boards about which they can speak on particular occasions laid down each year for the benefit of the House, under which the House may consider the operations of particular boards.
What I dislike is general remarks of this kind which may be taken in the country as referring to the administration of boards generally, when even the hon. Members making these accusations do not regard them as true of boards

generally. I suggest that it would have been better if that sort of remark had been made, if it was thought to be justified, of specific boards rather than of boards generally.
On this question of administrative costs and unnecessary and wasteful bureaucracy, I was interested to hear from a number of hon. Members that they thought that the voluntary local government board had lower administrative costs than others. I in no way hold it against the voluntary local government board, to whose work I paid tribute in my opening remarks, but I am informed that the situation is to the contrary.
For the year ending March, 1969, the administrative expenses of the Local Government Training Board were about £100,000 on a levy income of just over £2 million; in other words, less than 5 per cent., which is a little above the average of the statutory boards. On administration, as opposed to training, the expenses of boards as a whole were about f4 million on a total levy income of about £130 million for the year ending March, 1969. In other words, the Local Government Training Board has, on this account, no special claim to virtue.
I do not place any particular weight on this fact, taken on its own. I do not say that the Local Government Training Board is to be criticised for its high administrative costs, because the question is what administration it needs to administer the training that is provided. The percentage of levy does not seem to be an accurate guide to whether or not it is engaging in "unnecessary and wasteful bureaucracy". It depends, for example, on the way in which it operates its levy system. However, if hon. Members are to take this as a measurement, then the Local Government Training Board does not show up the statutory boards as being guilty in this respect.
The hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington asked when the Cousins Committee's report would be available. I expect that report to be in our hands shortly. I hope that it will not be delayed as a result of the regrettable illness of Mr. Cousins. Whether the report will be published is a matter which will have to be decided when we have it, but my predisposition is always in favour of publication whenever possible.

Mr. Scott: When the right hon. Gentleman uses the word "shortly" in this context does he mean weeks rather than months?

Mr. Dell: I hope to have it in about two months.
The hon. Member for Basingstoke argued the necessity for closer liaison between Government training centres and industrial training boards and said that the boards should use the G.T.C. facilities. He made a reasonable point, and we are considering it in relation to specific training boards. Again, however, I know of no difficulty in doing that at present; and this is another example of something that could be done without legislation.
Three points received a great deal of attention in many speeches. The first, which was raised in particular by the hon. Member for Ilford, North (Mr. Iremonger), was members' clubs. I cannot imagine why the hon. Gentleman thought it vindictive to list members' clubs, and he read the list to the House. I would have thought that one might be accused of being dishonourable or of concealing something if one did not list them.
We have listed them and have said that this is something that we intend to do. The hon. Gentleman's accusation of vindictiveness might appropriately be made against his hon. Friends on the Front Bench opposite, for it was the hon. Member for Warwick and Leamington who said that the argument was finely balanced—so he obviously acquits us of vindictiveness—while the hon. Member for Paddington, South saw strong arguments, on grounds of principle, for including them, and said that it would be difficult to draw a line for excluding them. Thus, the charge of vindictiveness by the hon. Member for Ilford, North was rather unfortunate.
The Bill includes members' clubs, though we can go into this matter in detail in Committee. However, I see no reason, in principle, for excluding them, when they are using the same sort of staff as institutions like hotels, large restaurants and proprietary clubs which are clearly within the scope of the Measure; and, of course, the number of employers, possibly 14,000, is not negligible.
In any event, what we are debating here is whether they should be within the scope of the Industrial Training Act. If there is adequate reason for excluding them from the scope of a particular board, then that will be a matter which the House can consider when we present, if we do, an order including them, and that would be done only after consultation.
I remind hon. Members, as they will see from the order which the House approved in 1966, which included members' clubs within the scope of the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board, that at that time we excluded members' clubs not providing main meals or board or lodging for reward. That effectively cut out workmen's clubs and the general run of small clubs. It would be possible in an order to specify exactly what clubs we had in mind. We could at that time take note of the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Paddington, South, but I have reservations about the sorts of exclusion to which he referred, where there might be a payroll of below a certain level.

Mr. Iremonger: The right hon. Gentleman said that if he decided to introduce an order bringing members' clubs within the scope of a particular board, that would be done only after consultation. Would he say with whom the consultations would take place?

Mr. Dell: We would have what we considered to be the necessary consultations. If the hon. Gentleman pointed out, in the course of that consultation, that I had omitted somebody, then I could certainly include that person or persons in the consultations. We try to be as fair as we can and we would have no motive for excluding from consultation anybody who could appropriately be involved.
This brings me to the point made widely in the debate; namely, the question of local authorities and whether they should be included. I gave the House an assurance that if the intention were to introduce an order to set up a statutory local government training board, there would be the fullest previous consultation. According to my information, it is wrong to think that all local authorities are opposed to this. It is true that the County Councils Association and the


Association of Municipal Corporations are not happy about it and have indicated that view to me. However, it is equally true that other local authorities are not against the proposal. Trade unions have indicated that they are in favour of it. It has, therefore, been thought right—although we are not questioning the fact that in its first two years the existing voluntary board has done very well—to take this enabling power which, as I say, we would not use without previous consultation.
The hon. Member for Honiton was worried about the fragmentation of the training of local authority employees as a result of being brought within the scope of the Measure. He might bear in mind that by bringing these employees within its scope, we are undertaking, to a considerable degree, responsibility for the training of those people. It is perhaps easier for us to decide, if we thought it right, not to fragment—I am making no commitment here—if we knew that we had the ultimate power to establish a statutory board, should that be thought necessary.
Reference was made to Crown employment and it was regretted by a number of hon. Members that such employment is excluded. This is a debatable point, and there are many in favour of including Crown employment. Nevertheless, it has so far been thought an unnecessary complication to place on Government Departments the obligations of the levy and grants system if the objectives could be achieved more simply in other ways.
The then Minister of Labour, the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), gave an undertaking on 20th November, 1963, that Government Departments would, in respect of their own employees, at least equal the standards set by the training boards for industrial training and associated further training. He gave an assurance that:
my colleagues will see that their Departments make a fair and reasonable contribution to training in the appropriate industries."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 1013–14.]
Those who took over from the right hon. Member for Grantham and other Ministers of that time have lived up to the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman then gave. I think many examples could be quoted of training

which actually exists and of the fact that this training is comparable with that which goes on under the aegis of industrial training boards. For example, according to the latest report from the engineering training board the estimated number of trainees in the industry is 17·4 per cent. and the percentage of engineering apprentices to craftsmen in Government employment is now 22·3 per cent. In addition there are external courses to prepare them for promotion which widen their career prospects.

Mr. David Mitchell: Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure me that it would be possible for him to accept an Amendment, should he so decide, during Committee stage to insert this in the Bill? There is nothing in the Long Title which would prevent this being done?

Mr. Dell: I do not think I should too readily say that to the hon. Member because I am not so very expert about the procedures of this House, but I think he is right. The Long Title is, as a matter of fact, rather short:
A Bill to amend the Industrial Training Act 1964".
I interpret that to mean that the suggested Amendment would probably be in order.

Mr. Dudley Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman have another look at this, because the good will aspect is involved? I am sure we have gone a stage further than when my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) made the point. Surely because of the resentment felt by some industrialists it would be very advantageous if this could be done.

Mr. Dell: I have had some indication this evening that an Amendment will be put down in Committee, and I shall therefore have to consider it seriously.
Criticisms have been made of the levy and grant system. I do not want to go into this in detail because that would take too long, but I make one point about it. Tribute has been paid to the advance which industrial training has made as a result of the training board system. I do not believe this would have taken place without the incentive of the grant system, and all criticisms of it should be considered against that background. Of course there is room for flexibility and


for amendment of the levy and grant system as the overall training provided by individual firms improves. In the criticisms of the levy and grant system let us not forget that it has made a very considerable contribution to improving the standard of training in this country.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice), who put a number of questions to me, is no longer in his place. He told me that he had to leave before I replied to the debate. I shall take advantage of that fact and will write to him giving answers to the questions he asked. The hon. Member for Paddington,South asked about occupancy of Government training centres and about their part in the total industrial training picture. The occupancy at 12th January, 1970, was 78 per cent., not 70 per cent. He should remember that new Government training centres are now quite rapidly coming into existence and it takes time to fill them up. This has an impact on the percentage of occupancy.
One reason for the fact that the percentage is at that level rather than nearer to 100 per cent. is the difficulty of attracting suitable trainees in certain parts of the country. We are now using the new sponsored training scheme to help to fill places, and 90 per cent. of trainees are placed in trades at the end of their three months' course. That should give an indication that the main criterion in filling these places is the possibility of placing the trainees in useful occupations once they are trained.
The hon. Member asked about resistance by unions to placing of trainees and resistance to dilutees. Of course there are difficulties with unions in various parts of the country although generally we are receiving co-operation from the unions. But for that co-operation we could not have had the advance we have had in industrial training. In this whole matter an important educational battle is necessary to ensure that the lesson of industrial training is thoroughly understood throughout the country. The hon. Member should not fasten his attention on trade unions alone. No trade union has come to me saying that the levy in any particular industry was too high. I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North that industrial training boards have to give a lead. If

they do give a lead they will sometimes receive criticism from employers in their industries who have to pay the levy as a result, but that lead is essential and without it we would not have made the advance which we have made.
We have made an advance of great proportions and it is very important to the economy of the country. This Bill is an important addition to the legislation under which we are operating and it will enable us to extend the scope of the industrial training boards in certain important respects. I look forward to the Committee stage during which, obviously, interesting Amendments will be moved, but I do not think any criticism made in this debate should be allowed to detract, either in the mind of the House or more generally, from the great success we have had in industrial training. It is not yet sufficient and it is still subject to a number of criticisms, but nevertheless it is laying the basis for the further development in which we are all interested.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

Orders of the Day — INDUSTRIAL TRAINING [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Industrial Training Act 1964 it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable under section 5 of that Act out of moneys provided by Parliament which is attributable to the extension of the activities in relation to which functions may be exercisable by industrial training boards established under the Act of 1964.—[Mr. Dell.]

7.58 p.m.

Mr. Dudley Smith: I do not want to delay the House, but the Bill says:
For the financial year 1970–71 the increase is unlikely to exceed £20,000.
Could an indication be given by the Government of what it is likely to be from then onwards?

The Minister of State, Department of Employment and Productivity (Mr. Edmund Dell): I think additional expenditure as a result of the Bill is likely to be small in any year. Obviously, it would depend to a large extent on whether new industrial training boards were set up and had to receive grants from the D.E.P. to assist them in the first instance. We are very far short, even after six years, of the £50 million included in the original Act, and I do not see any large expenditure arising as a result of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

7.59 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. John Dunwoody): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The object of this straightforward Bill is to transfer to a statutory board the present functions of three existing bodies—the Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee, appointed under the Radioactive Substances Act, 1948; the Radiological Protection Service, run by the Medical Research Council; and that part of the central health and safety branch of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority which deals with radiological protection.
In the last 20 years we have seen the gradual establishment of atomic energy as a means of providing power, and the increasingly widespread use of radioactive substances and of radiation in medicine, industry and commerce. The properties of these substances and of radiation produced by machines are of great benefit to mankind, but, as with other scientific and technical development, there are accompanying hazards. It has been necessary to build substantially on the knowledge acquired in earlier years for protecting people from dangers associated with the use of X-rays and from substances like radium, until now there is virtually a new branch of knowledge and activity, generally described as radiological protection.
In 1948, at the beginning of the British effort in atomic energy and the spread

of the use of the properties of radiation outside medicine, Parliament passed the Radioactive Substances Act. This was a general enabling Act to allow certain Ministers to make regulations for the protection of people against hazards from radioactive substances and ionising radiations. Under the provisions of this Act, the Ministers were required, after appropriate consultation, to appoint an advisory committee whose duty was to advise Ministers on the regulations they were proposing to make under the Act.
This advisory committee, the Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee, has a membership of 16 under the chairmanship of Sir Brian Windeyer, now Vice-Chancellor of London University, having recently retired from the professorship of therapeutic radiology of that university and from being Director of the Meyerstein Institute of Radiotherapy at the Middlesex Hospital—rôles which he has filled with great distinction.
The Secretary of State for Education and Science is the Minister responsible for appointing the committee, and the Director of the Radiological Protection Service acts as its technical secretary.
In radiological protection there are several Government Departments which have powers to make regulations, and these Departments have their own technical staff to cover their special interests. The purpose of the Bill, however, is to achieve in the proposed new statutory board and its staff a single national point of authoritative reference and a body which can provide the necessary technical services, both to Government Departments and to others.
The Bill provides for a committee to advise the board. The committee would comprise a much wider membership than the board itself and would enable scientific, medical, employer and trade union representatives, together with representatives from Government Departments with responsibilities for radiological protection, to be associated with the work of the board. The committee's function would be to advise the board, and the board would be expected to consult the committee, and to have regard to its views, before advising Ministers on the preparation of regulations and codes of practice, and before giving formal advice on the application and interpretation of international recommendations on basic standards of protection.
This arrangement will enable the board itself to be kept small enough for effective management and yet enable its opinions to be informed by a wide spread of interests. Consultation between board and committee will be particularly important where the board is advising Government Departments on technical matters, for example, on regulations applied to those whose work or whose products involve radiation hazards.
I now turn to the two existing groups of experts that we propose to combine in order to form the board's staff.
The first is the Radiological Protection Service, which was set up in 1953 under the management of the Medical Research Council on behalf of three sponsors—itself, the then Ministry of Health and the Scottish Home and Health Department. The cost of its operations is shared between these three bodies according to the requirements of research—that is the Council—and services—that is the two Departments. The headquarters of the service are at Sutton in Surrey in the grounds of the Royal Marsden Hospital. Research is also undertaken here, and a radiological protection service is provided to the South East. There are also regional centres in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and Glasgow.
The Atomic Energy Authority, as the House will know, was established in 1954 by the Atomic Energy Authority Act of that year. The authority is organised into a number of groups which have establishments and works. Each of these establishments and works is in the charge of a management which has its health and safety departments covering both radiation and other potential hazards. In 1959 the Atomic Energy Authority decided, after the Fleck Committee Report following the Windscale incident, to create a central health and safety branch, whose function is to advise the board of the authority in respect of its health and safety policy, to disseminate that policy and to assist in its application, to co-ordinate certain research work, and to co-ordinate the authority's views in respect of international discussions relating to health and safety matters. The branch also co-ordinates views on radiation protection matters expressed on behalf of the United Kingdom when requested to do so by the Ministry of Technology, which has

responsibility for our relationship in technical matters with organisations like the International Atomic Energy Agency and the European Nuclear Energy Agency.
I should like to make it clear that it is not intended that the creation of the new board should have any immediate effect on the activities, including research activities, which are being undertaken by the component parts. It will be for the board itself to assess the work at present in hand and to bring about a coordination of their various research activities.
The Medical Research Council and the Atomic Energy Authority, as a consequence of the provisions of the Bill, are to transfer a substantial proportion of their radiological protection staff to the proposed board. Amongst the senior members of both the groups of staff to be transferred there are recognised leaders of world opinion in their fields. Both the council and the Atomic Energy Authority will contribute to the cost of the board and will expect to be able to make demands on it for advice and services. The board, of course, will be expected to meet these demands. The Health Ministers have agreed, subject to Parliament's passing this Bill, to appoint nominees of both bodies to the board.
The remaining members of the board will be appointed by the Health Ministers from people who are authoritative in fields appropriate to the board's work, such as medicine, science and industry.
The House may wish to know of the financial responsibilities of the different Departments of State involved in the new organisation. The position is that the estimated gross revenue expenditure for the year 1969–70 is £822,000, of which 45 per cent. will be paid by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services; 30 per cent. by the Atomic Energy Authority, for whose parliamentary grant my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology is responsible; 20 per cent. from the Medical Research Council, for whose grant my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is responsible; and 5 per cent. from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
For the first few years the contribution from these four sources to the new board


will be worked out on proportions calculated approximately on the basis of current expenditure. Afterwards the proportions will be reviewed and revised if necessary in the light of the situation at the time.
I am sure that the House will agree that the members of the Radioactive Substances Advisory Committee and its panels have done well, and I would like to take this opportunity of thanking those concerned for their valuable work, but we believe that the arrangements which the present Bill will introduce will bring about a considerable improvement. The committee's functions will be transferred to the new statutory board, supported by its own expert staff drawn from the Radiological Protection Service and the Atomic Energy Authority, and informed through its own advisory committee, by the same range of independent and expert opinion as exists on the present statutory committee.
As I indicated at the outset, the intention of the Bill is straightforward and in no way controversial, and I do not think that the House would wish me to explain in detail the drafting of its seven Clauses and two Schedules at this stage of our consideration of its contents.
An advisory group of administrators and experts has already been set up to study the arrangements which will need to be made for the future, and its work will, I am sure, be of great value to the board. The scientists and administrators concerned in the Medical Research Council and Atomic Energy Authority are looking forward to this amalgamation of the sources of advice and to the formation of the new board. I can assure the House that the conditions of service of the staff involved in these changes will not be adversely affected by these proposals.
It is intended that the Atomic Energy Authority terms and conditions of service will be applied to the board's staff. Individual employees transferring from the Medical Research Council to the board's employment will be able to retain their existing salary on assimilation to an appropriate new grade unless the minimum of the new grade is more advantageous. The staff and their representative associations will of course have an opportunity to put their views to the board on

any points of difference prior to transfer. I should also like to make it clear that the board will be expected to set up appropriate machinery for consulting its staff on matters of concern to them. This is a normal feature of public bodies today and the new board will need to have—and I am sure will wish to have—its consultative machinery.
The Bill will improve the co-ordination of our arrangements for radiological protection, give better support to Government Departments, both directly and by means of research, and enable our views to be authoritatively heard in international gatherings. These are the objects of the Bill, and I hope, therefore, that the House will give its unanimous approval to its Second Reading.

8.10 p.m.

Mr. Tim Fortescue: We on this side of the House welcome this Bill, which, as the Joint Under-Secretary says, is non-controversial and should be acceptable to everyone. We also welcomed the hon. Gentleman's speech, which bears more than a coincidental resemblance to the speech with which the Bill was introduced in another place. In the debate in the other place the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, who is one of the world's greatest experts on the subject of radiological protection, said, and I do not think that anybody would disagree with him, that this nuclear energy industry was the safest industry in the world.
It is the safest in the world simply because everybody is so frightened of it. It began in circumstances which we shall never forget, with the biggest and the most devastating explosion that has ever happened. Since then no one has been quite certain that this is a power which can safely be harnessed. For that reason, from the very beginning, and almost before the beginning of the nuclear energy industry, such stringent precautions were taken to protect life and health from its effects that Lord Ritchie-Calder's remarks were fully justified.
I was in some small way implicated in the only dangerous incident of any kind which has happened in this country as a result of the nuclear energy industry, what was called "the Windscale incident" in 1957, when there was a considerable escape of radiological material from the Windscale plant and


the fall-out spread for some considerable distance round the plant. At that time I was engaged in the milk industry and was responsible, had to be responsible, for the arrangements whereby milk which was taken from the cows grazing in the fields affected was prevented from reaching the public. I well remember the complicated arrangements we had to make and the fact that we had to pour all the milk which came from those cows down the drain.
Most vividly of all, perhaps, I remember the fact that the yield of the cows in the area suddenly doubled. The reason for this was not far to seek when we started testing the milk for butter fat before it was poured down the drain. We found that the mysterious doubling of the yield was probably due to human intervention in the product of cows.
The structure of the new National Radiological Protection Board, which the Under-Secretary has described, is fairly complex. He has described how the board's finance will be provided. It seems that it will be provided from a number of different bodies. The total finance, under £1 million a year, will come from no fewer than four contributors, from various bodies and Ministries. It occurs to me that this is perhaps over-complex and that since this board is to be under the aegis of his own Ministry, the Department of Health and Social Security, there is really no very good reason why the finance should not be consolidated within that Ministry instead of having these petty contributions from three or four other bodies.
I do not know what the reason is. I am sure that it cannot be a very good one, and I would like an explanation why it is to be perpetuated. The hon. Gentleman may quote to me the so-called "Haldane" principle, which is the shorthand term for saying that research bodies should not be unduly hampered or directed by the Ministries to which they are responsible. In this case I do not think that that would be a very strong argument for such a complicated structure.
There is one almost parochial point that I would like to raise, and that is what is to become, when this board is established, of the hospital-based film

badge monitoring services of which I believe the most famous and biggest is in Liverpool—the Liverpool Radium Institute? These are services which, as I understand it, provide film badge monitoring services to various organisations within the Atomic Energy Authority. Will they continue to do the same work as they do now, or will they be superseded? Will there be some kind of co-operation between them and the new board?
My hon. Friend the Member for Abingdon (Mr. Neave), who is not in his place this evening since he is attending an even more distinguished scientific occasion in this Palace, has asked me to express his regret to the House. He takes very great interest in this matter and, as the House will know, Harwell is in his constituency. He has asked me to ask the Under-Secretary whether there is a nomination for the chairman of the new board.
There was an indication in the debate in the other place that the chairman had already been appointed; one of the noble Lords said that the new chairman was a very distinguished man. There is nothing in the debate to say that he has been appointed. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can tell us. Dealing with the director of the new board, or whatever the chief official of the board is to be called, will he be part-time or full-time? There is gossip that a certain Dr. McLean of the Atomic Energy Authority is to be appointed to this job. He is, as I understand it, an employee of the authority. Will he continue to be an employee of the authority on a part-time basis while he is working for the new board, or is to be transferred full-time to the new board?
Where will the headquarters of the new board be? Is it to be at either of the places the Under-Secretary mentioned, where the component parts, as it were, of the new board are headquartered at the moment, or will the headquarters be in London or some new site? Has the staff which is to be transferred to the new board from the Medical Research Council and the Atomic Energy Authority been consulted as to the new site, and is it in agreement about the move? This is a comparatively minor point of detail but it is important.
These points are all friendly and non-critical, but I now come to a more difficult subject which I hope the new board will make one of its first concerns. I am delighted to see the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) present since he has a direct constituency interest in this important and somewhat distressing matter. I am referring to the question of the risk of leukaemia which is run by those who are in close contact with nuclear power stations and other such establishments.
There has been some Press comment on this risk recently, and the stories I hear are worrying, to say the least. I have details here of four cases, and the gist of the matter appears to be that although the risk is, roughly speaking, about 1 in 100,000 in the normal population, of the fewer than 5,000 men who were close to the Christmas Island nuclear explosion in the 1950s four or five have already died of leukaemia. It would seem prima facie, therefore, that the chance of contracting leukaemia, which is, of course, incurable, has been increased from one in 100,000 to about one in 1,000 or more among those who have been exposed to this risk. This is prima facie and there is nothing conclusive about it, but since then there have been a number of cases of workers at atomic energy establishments who have died of leukaemia within a comparatively short time of starting to work there or leaving the service because of sickness.
I have here details of a Mr. Clark who died in December 1960 of leukaemia. He had been working at Windscale. It is interesting to note that in his case the Atomic Energy Authority made a settlement out of court of £4,500 to his estate and his widow without admitting any liability at all by saying this was purely ex gratia and that it wished to pay. It was stated at that time, quite bluntly I am afraid, that the Authority settled out of court because it was very reluctant that the matter should come to court and be fully exposed. In March 1962 a Mr. Gillen who worked at Dounreay, in the constituency of the hon. Gentleman opposite, died of leukaemia. Ever since then his widow has been trying to obtain some compensation. She has tried to get compensation under the Industrial Injuries Act but

has failed completely. She is still trying to obtain satisfaction of some kind.
The last case I have on record, though there may be others of which I do not know, is that of a Mr. MacDonald, also of Dounreay, who is at the moment in hospital with leukaemia. He is trying to get some help from the Atomic Energy Authority but so far he has been unsuccessful. The latest report I have, which is in December, 1965, is that an anonymous doctor—I quote this from the Sunday Times of 14th December—has written a nine-page report stating that it is highly probable that Mr. MacDonald contracted his leukaemia as a result of an accident at Dounreay. I understand that on the basis of this Mr. MacDonald is to take the Atomic Energy Authority to court in an endeavour to obtain some compensation.
Whatever the merits of this matter, I do not believe that the Parliamentary Secretary will deny that it is extremely worrying. In France when a worker in a nuclear establishment contracts leukaemia he is paid compensation automatically. The authorities do not wait for a man to prove that he has contracted the disease as a result of his work in the station. He is given the benefit of the doubt every time. It seems that in this country we do not do so. We require proof; and the House will understand that it is practically impossible for a man to prove that the leukaemia that he has contracted is due to any particular cause. The causes of leukaemia are not yet understood in this country. Except for the one remarkable case where the authority made an ex gratia payment, nobody so far has managed to get any compensation for his illness.
The Sunday Times reported:
Replying to a question in the Commons last week Mr. Wedgwood Benn, the Technology Minister, said there was 'no prima facie case that employment in the Atomic Energy Authority contributes to leukaemia diagnosed in its employees or ex-employees'.
The Minister went on to say that figures that he had showed that the incidence of leukaemia among these employees is no higher than it is in the rest of the population. The Sunday Times of 8th February, reporting on this, stated:
The Atomic Energy Authority gives the impression of being extremely defensive on this issue. There have been several other


cases that came to nothing because the claimant was unable to find a doctor to give supporting evidence, or because the Authority refused point blank to accept responsibility. In France they would have been better off. There, radiation workers who get leukaemia are given the benefit of the doubt, and get compensation.
I hope I have made the point. I accept completely that there is no absolute proof one way or the other, but I would urge upon the Under-Secretary that when this board is set up, and I hope it will be very soon, one of its first tasks should be to examine with the utmost care the possible connection between working at an atomic energy plant and this horrible disease; and that if possible research should be started immediately into what conecting factor there is.

8.25 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: Like the hon. Member opposite, I welcome this Bill because it serves to tidy up a situation that we took in hand in 1948 whereby for the first time in history perhaps we are trying to conserve human resources against spoilation. We are fighting the hazards of radiation by such information and such research as can be garnered together.
But, welcoming the Bill as I do, I would like to have answers from my hon. Friend on the Front Bench to certain questions. It seems to me, particularly in view of the statements made by hon. Members of the Opposition with regard to leukaemia and the Atomic Energy Authority, that the organisation of the new protection board suffers from a disadvantage which I hope will diminish and eventually disappear. It does not seem to me to be completely independent of an existing agency which is or will be affected by its directives.
It will be recalled that in the report of the Veale Committee in 1960 it was stated in paragraph 131:
The proposed service"—
that is, a radiological protection service—
should be independent of departments having regulating or other direct responsibilities in the field of radiological health and safety. It should be independent of the Authority, since it may be called upon to advise in matters in which the Authority are concerned. For the service to be most effective it must be the servant of all but the agent of none.
When one comes to examine what has gone on in the creation of the service that

will be inaugurated when this Bill becomes an Act, one finds that there are some anomalies that could be cleared up. The question I raise is this: is the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority exercising more discretion within the new organisation than the Radiological Protection Service?
I raise that question because the trade union with which I am associated, the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, discovered that questions that could arise in relation to the conditions of service of its members when a new organisation is created in industry had not been under discussion with the trade union concerned but had been considered only with those who are represented in or working in the Atomic Energy Authority.
From what the Minister has told us, there are, I believe, to be about 265 members on the staff of the new board. Forty of these members will come from the Atomic Energy Authority and 225 from the Radiological Protection Service. Yet it is with the first authority that discussions went on. It was not until the intervention of my organisation that those who were considering the setting up of the board were prepared to listen to representation on behalf of 225 persons.
We hope that this omission will be quickly retified and that the staff of both organisations will have an opportunity as soon as possible of seeing that none of the conditions of employment or promotion is worsened as a result of the take-over of those two bodies and the setting up of a new one. We also hope that the staff will know where they are to work as early as possible because there are all kinds of social conditions which might arise and create disquiet if the staff is to be informed only at the last moment and if no discussions are to go on with their representatives.
I was happy to hear from the Minister that the superannuation rights of staff for both organisations will be safeguarded. That brings to mind another matter. It is interesting to note that the Atomic Energy Authority staff who are being seconded into the employment of the new board are all top brass and it may well be that in view of the technical and scientific equipment being used there is a justification for this.
I know that tribute was paid in another place, and has already been paid here, to the high technical qualifications. The claim is too often made in a Chauvinistic way that we are ahead of other countries in this field. As far as the scientific staff are concerned, we may be, and I am certain that we are, ahead as far as the technical staff are concerned. I hope that in future tribute may be paid to them as well as the top brass, as is so often done.
My members are concerned about the question of their promotion if they are absorbed into this new organisation where all the top brass comes from another authority and may be reluctant to relinquish its positions when the time comes for a change to be made. It should be understood by hon. Members that this is a matter of grave concern, together with all the other factors that are raised by the members of my union.
I think there could be a safeguard inserted in the Bill which would be most helpful to us when we come to consider the composition of the two executive organisations which will exist as a result of the setting up of the board. We have in the first place the board itself and then we have an advisory committee which will advise the board on several matters. There is provision for representatives both of management in industry and of the workers in industry on the committee. But the 10 members who will comprise the board, so far as I can see, do not include, and the Bill does not provide for, representatives either of management in industry or of workers in industry.
I think that it would overcome much of the fear in my members' minds if it could be made quite clear that on the board which is to be set up as a result of the passing of the Bill a trade union representative will be included who will be able to advise on what I think is the most fundamental issue of this day outside certain racial questions—industrial relations.
I therefore hope that the Minister, when he replies, will make an endeavour to deal with these questions. They have been bothering us for a month or two now. We have finally had some discussions with a sort of shadow board or a shadow advisory committee or whatever

it might be. We are not wholly satisfied but we hope that, as a result of what might be said at the end of this debate, the Minister will make my members feel that they will get a square deal.

8.35 p.m.

Captain Walter Elliot: The hon. Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) has covered most of what I wanted to say.
The Bill was introduced in another place as a Measure to rationalise and co-ordinate the radiological safety organisations in the United Kingdom, and the Minister referred to a single authoritarian body to do this. He also referred to the fact that it would render technical services, and Clause 1(2)(a) says that the board shall have power
to provide technical services to persons concerned with radiation hazards".
That implies fairly detailed work.
The Minister said that the body which he is proposing to set up would be composed of the radiological protection services, the Atomic Energy Authority health and safety branch, and the radioactive substances committee or board. But there are other bodies engaged in this sort of work. For example, there are the operational health physics groups at the various United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority establishments, and they are not included. There are the staffs, which I think have been mentioned by my hon. Friend, concerned with radiological safety in various hospitals. Then there are radiological safety organisations within the Central Electricity Generating Board concerned with operations at nuclear power stations. I imagine that those three organisations are also concerned with technical services. I am not clear how this new authority rendering these services will work in with those. I am not certain that rationalisation goes far enough.
My next point relates to the loss of independence by this authority compared with the existing radiological protection service, and this was referred to by the hon. Member for Stockport, South, who quoted an extract from the Veale Report. It is interesting to note that there is a case in which a man is claiming to have suffered injury due to exposure to ionising radiation while working for the A.E.A. It is a claim which the authority


denies, and the present radiological protection service, as a specialist organisation independent of the authority, has provided a report and opinion on the case.
I have been sent what purports to be a list of the shadow board. I do not know whether it is supposed to be released, but I shall not mention the names in case there is some reason why I should not do so. I have been given the deputy chairman, a member of the A.E.A. Another of the directors is a member of the authority. The acting secretary is a member of the authority, and the director-designate of the new organisation is a member of the authority. That seems to give the authority rather too strong a representation, and it does not seem to go along with the extract from the Veale Report which was read by the hon. Gentleman. I hope that the Minister will consider that.
Lastly, there is the question of possible redundancy. The word "rationalisation" always creates a fear of that when it is mentioned. The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says that the Bill
will permit a more economical deployment of existing manpower".
I understand that the radiological protection service does not have a great deal of information about what is intended, and I hope that the Minister will be able to ease the fears of this group and that there will be no redundancy as a result of his plans.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Like the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot), I feel some uncertainty as to how this Bill will operate in practice at the various establishments where research work is being carried out into radiological protection. The Bill has been given a welcome in principle both in another place and here today on both sides of the House. I do not want to inject any note of criticism into the so far unanimous welcome it has received, but, rather, would raise some questions which I do not think have been fully answered by my hon. Friend.
I would like to ask my hon. Friend first why this Measure is being brought forward at this time. Is it on the basis

of recommendations made to him, and, if so, whence have those recommendations come? What consultation has there been with all the bodies which are going to be affected by this?
To speak of only one of the constituent bodies, the United Kingdom A.E.A., it is well known that this authority is undergoing some fairly drastic reorganisation at the present time, and it seems a little odd that this relatively minor reorganisation should be proceeded with separately from the major reorganisation.
Can my hon. Friend say where it is intended that the research which is to be sponsored by the new organisation will be carried out? The Bill appears to envisage some rationalisation of the activities of the radiological protection organisations as a result of this Measure, and it is expected that there will be certain savings. My hon. Friend has said that it is not thought that there will be any immediate alteration in the work programme being carried out, but, if this is so, can he say what savings are anticipated?
Is there any thought of concentrating the new National Radiological Protection Board's work at the Royal Marsden Hospital in Surrey, or where is it thought that the headquarters will be?
I notice also that the Bill does not provide—but perhaps this is a Committee point—when it is intended to bring the board into operation but that it will be done at a date to be appointed. Perhaps my hon. Friend might give some indication of his intentions in that regard.
It must also be asked who is to direct the research services to be carried out by the board. Apparently under the Bill the Ministry is to have the prime responsibility here. But what is to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Technology? One of the principal constituents of this body is the health and safety branch of the Atomic Energy Authority, ultimately responsible to the Ministry of Technology, and there is some obscurity as to precisely what rôle it can be anticipated the Ministry will have.
I am delighted to hear from my hon. Friend that the Atomic Energy Authority's conditions of service will be applied to the staff of the new board and that where they are less advantageous the new board will provide at least as favourable


treatment. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) has gone into this in rather more detail and has put some specific points which I would otherwise have put.
I share the general view expressed here this afternoon that the financing of the new board is extremely complex, and for no apparent reason. It falls to be answered by my hon. Friend why such a complicated arrangement is necessary. It seems particularly hard to explain in that, so far as one can see, a number of these constituent bodies will not have much say in directing the activities of the board. It seems rather odd, therefore, that it should fall upon their Vote.
Will my hon. Friend say what will be the future of the work which is now being done by the various establishments of the Atomic Energy Authority on this subject? There are many jobs being done, on what initiative I do not know, but they are apparently not related to any overall work programme. Presumably, local initiative has played some part, stemming perhaps from the establishments themselves or from hospitals in the area where problems have arisen.
When centralisation of decision-making takes place—and this appears to be at least part of the purpose of the Bill—there is always a fear that some local initiatives may be lost in the process of transmission to the central organising authority. The list of activities of research and investigation being carried out within the establishments of the Atomic Energy Authority and contained in the recent annual report of the U.K.A.E.A. is quite impressive, and includes diverse activities.
To mention only one that is being carried out at present at Dounreay, in my own constituency, there is a long-term programme of measurements of caesium 137 levels in vivo on control subjects. There has also been collaboration with local hospitals in the measurement of the uptake of iodine 131 by the thyroids of patients, for medical diagnostic purposes.
This sort of work is immensely useful, and I strongly suspect that the facilities of the Atomic Energy Authority establishments are, if not under-used, capable of greater use. A programme of this sort can often be slotted into an existing work programme where there are

facilities and where men are available and have the time to carry out the work and where a local initiative is taken. I hope that this kind of work will not suffer from the new structure.
One minor point on which I would like to seek enlightenment from the Minister is: what is to happen to the Atomic Energy Authority's own badge monitoring service under the new arrangements? I assume that it goes without saying that the Bill does not in any way affect the work of the Atomic Energy Authority's biomedical technical research programme, some of which is being carried on at Aldermaston, as I suppose it does not strictly fall within the sphere of radiological protection. Quite a lot of unrelated medical research is being carried out within the A.E.A., only some of which will fall directly within the sphere of the new National Radiological Protection Board. It is a little curious, and I put it no higher, that it should be thought advisable to separate certain of the work carried on under the aegis of the authority in health matters from the rest.
I must express discontent at the piecemeal approach to the reorganisation of the A.E.A., which has been going on for a number of years and has created considerable uncertainty in the minds of its employees. I accept that this Bill is only an incident in the process, but people are involved and uncertainty of this kind about their future careers is most difficult for them to have to face. I wish that this matter could have been left over until the whole future of the authority was settled.
I understand that it is not expected that the Bill will cause any increase in public expenditure. I hope that it does not follow that if it is thought desirable to promote new projects of medical research, the finances will not be available for the purpose. Likewise, I hope that if it is thought that A.E.A. establishments are suitable places to carry out this research the question of possible increase of manpower for these establishments will not necessarily be thought to be an argument for trying to guide the work elsewhere.
I should like to take the opportunity to follow what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) about the incidence of leukaemia among


employees of the Atomic Energy Authority and support his suggestion that this problem should be one of the first matters to be considered by the National Radiological Protection Board. It would be quite wrong if the message were to go out from this House—as I am sure it will not—that these employees of the authority are engaged on highly dangerous work In fact, the evidence of incurred risk is extremely scanty. However, we must all be concerned about the known cases and the fact that it seems almost impossible in the prevailing conditions for employees of the authority who contract leukaemia to recover from the authority and certainly to prove that their ailment is in any sense linked with their work.
I know Mrs. Gillen, to whom reference has been made, and I know of her troubles over a number of years in the hopeless task of trying to persuade the authority that her husband's death was connected with his work. The case simply was a non-starter because of the difficulty of proving any medical connection and because of the fact that the causes of leukaemia are unknown.
I have heard it said by others in my constituency who have been employed at the Dounreay Atomic Energy Authority establishment that there are other people thought to have contracted certain conditions due to radiation who simply have not conceived it possible to make any progress with a complaint against the authority because of the difficulty of proof.
The Sunday Times has performed a useful service in publicising some of these cases and drawing the attention of the Government and the public to the French practice, which I take this opportunity of commending to my hon. Friend, and which I hope he will bring to the attention of his colleagues.
As matters stand, it seems that it is not possible to prove this connection and that, in the circumstances, the rap has to be taken by the sufferer, though perhaps that is an inappropriate way of putting it. As so few cases are involved, much the most satisfactory outcome would be for the authority to make ex gratia payments in such cases without necessarily accepting any implication of cause and effect.
I hope that my hon. Friend will explain how it is proposed that the new board will service the existing Atomic Energy Authority establishments in its radiological protection work. The authority is probably the body which most relies upon the effectiveness of such work. Within its own organisation, it has some control over the work done and the services provided. Will the new arrangements be as satisfactory as the existing ones have proved to be?
In justifying and explaining the purpose of the new body, my hon. Friend said that it will provide a national point of authoritative reference and the necessary technical services. However, it is not clear why a single national point of authoritative reference is desirable in a matter of this kind. There may be something to be said for having more than one source of advice when more than one body is involved, with different experiences and different problems.
With that perhaps rather lukewarm welcome to the Bill, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the thoroughness of his explanation of its purposes.

8.59 p.m.

Mr. Ian Mikardo: I cannot adequately follow my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), because he speaks about the matters before us with a width of knowledge and a degree of authority to which I cannot hope to aspire. I wish merely to associate myself with hon. Members on both sides of the House who have given a general welcome to the principles of the Bill, some of them more warmly than others.
I join with my hon. Friend in thanking my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for and congratulating him on the sure-footed way in which he moved the Second Reading. That gave proof, if it were needed, of how well deserved was the promotion which has brought him to the Treasury Bench. I will not detain the House for long. I wish only to underline one or two of the points made by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach).
The staffing of the new organisation is a marriage, as the Under-Secretary explained, between groups of people drawn


from two different organisations. But what a one-sided marriage it is. We have about two dozen from the U.K.A.E.A. and about 220 from the Radiological Protection Service of the Medical Research Council. Yet the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton was able to reel off a list of four top appointments known to him—there may be more not known to him—all of which come from the much smaller element in the marriage.
This is like the kind of marriage which I understand takes place between certain species of spiders where, aftter copulation, the female devours the male. This marriage is reminiscent of the matings of some historic ladies, like Lucrezia Borgia or Catherine the Great of Russia. It is a one-sided institution. The point made by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton in this connection is weighty. It deserves consideration and an answer.
What worries me most is that the 200-odd people from the M.R.C. will feel that their promotion prospects are blocked. I know from experience that nothing exercises a more deadening effect on an organisation—above all, on a new organisation—than if a group of people are told that they are more or less stuck where they are; that they may be able to go up one notch or, at most, two, but that the avenues of promotion are blocked to a great degree. The organisation starts off on the wrong foot. It starts with the wrong type and the wrong level of morale. If about two dozen people from one place are brought in and given all the top jobs and about 200 from another place are not given any, then an élite-ist society is formed with management élite and helots. That is not conducive to setting up from scratch an organisation which will work really well.
The Under-Secretary devoted some of his observations to the important question of industrial relations in the working of the new organisation to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South referred. I noted carefully what the Minister said: that the organisations representing the people who will work under the board can put their views to the board prior to transfer. I hope that he does not mean exclusively prior to transfer and that they will not be able to put their views to the board after

transfer. I hope that what he said about consultative machinery means that there will be a proper recognition of and dealing with these associations.
My hon. Friend may wonder why I should think that there is any question of a public authority behaving any less well than that. But there are good reasons for it. The Medical Research Council, from which most of these people will come, has been referred to the Commission on Industrial Relations, because it is thought that its behaviour in industrial relations demands looking into. We must not seek to anticipate what the C.I.R. will say about this reference. But I find it shocking, bearing in mind that such a reference is made only after the Secretary of State decides that there is a prima facie case, that an organisation existing entirely on public funds should be referred to an inquiry to which the only other people who have been referred are a handful of the most obscurantist companies who, in industrial relations, have behaved like nineteenth century Birmingham iron masters. It is disgraceful that an organisation like the Medical Research Council should be in the same bucket with all that lot.
One of the troubles is that scientific organisations are run by scientists. I hope that I shall not offend any scientist in this place by saying that the best scientists are sometimes very poor administrators. The chaps who will run this National Radiological Protection Board must be administered as well as scientists, and one of the sciences to which they will have to apply themselves is man management. I expect that a number of them have the highest qualifications in biological, radiological or physiological science, but I wonder whether any has had 10 minutes training in man management.
I am not competent to judge the few scientists whom I have met in the Council as scientists—I am sure that they must be very good or they would not be where they are—but as man managers there are few whom I would employ in any organisation which I have ever run at any way above £10 a week, because they are abjectly bad at handling their personnel.
Since a large part of the personnel of the new organisation will come from that body, I have some reason to ask my hon. Friend for an assurance, which


I know he will be delighted to give, that he and his colleagues will see that the board set up under the Bill will behave in a very different way.
The Bill provides that the persons chosen for the advisory committee—this is common form in this kind of provision—shall be chosen
… from among persons appearing to the Health Ministers to be connected with, or to have knowledge or experience of, matters relating to health and safety in connection with radiation hazards, including officers of government departments and persons engaged in industry or in the organisation of workers in industry.
No one could object to that. That seems to cast the net pretty wide and to enable the Ministers to include people with knowledge and experience in dealing with all the problems which they are likely to face.
But the provisions about the board are much less expansive:
The Board shall consist of a chairman and not less than seven, nor more than nine, other members; and all the members of the Board shall be appointed by the Health Ministers after consultation with the Atomic Energy Authority and the Medical Research Council.
No provision there about whether they shall know anything about anything. What worries me, again, is that we may get a board composed entirely of scientists.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South disagreed and said that Ministers would appoint people with appropriate knowledge and experience of, for example, medicine, science and industry. But why did he leave out people with experience of the organisation of workers?
When my hon. Friend referred to those three items—medicine, science and industry—he was really saying that although we have not written into Clause 2 the qualifications which we have written into Clause 4, we would, nevertheless, be seeking people with the same qualifications; that is, except one, and he did not mention the organisation of workers in industry.
The Minister should consult his colleagues about the necessity of having at least one person on the board who knows something about the organisation of workers in industry to ensure that the

board does not run into the same silly old troubles that one of the two founding fathers, the Medical Research Council, has run into.
I confess to having put forward a name to one of the Minister's colleagues. Ministers are always looking for good people for the sort of jobs we are considering tonight. They cannot be expected to know everybody. For this reason I have suggested a person who would, I consider, be eminently suitable. This gentleman is a distinguished scientist and a great expert on radiology but he also happens to have been all his life an active trade unionist. He would, therefore, combine the different types of knowledge that would be called for in this job.
According to the Bill, this gentleman might find himself on the advisory committee, but it is unlikely that he would be appointed to the board. If somebody with this man's experience were not appointed, a blow would be struck at the confidence of the chaps who will have to work in this organisation because they will be wondering about the way in which the board has been set up and is to be run.
I know from experience, because I have had to do it, that it is never easy to set up a new organisation by taking bits from one body and joining it to other bits taken from other bodies. Tensions are bound to arise. Some groups of chaps will have worked different systems and methods. There will be different attitudes, and there will be rivalry in such matters as "empire building" and so on. There will be a certain freemasonry within each group which will take time to blend its way through the group. All this will become even more difficult if one adds further difficulties. I therefore beg my hon. Friend to see that this does not occur.
I hope that the Bill will have its Second Reading but that improvements will be made in Committee along the lines suggested by hon. Members tonight. I hope that, when set up, the board will have a long and successful career.

9.14 p.m.

Dr. John Dunwoody: With the leave of the House, perhaps I may be permitted to answer some of the points which have been raised. A large number of points have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House, some of which


are perhaps more appropriate to Committee stage and some of which I may not be able to cover. I thank hon. Members for the welcome given to the Bill from both sides of the House.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue) raised a number of important points, some of which were echoed by other hon. Members. He placed importance on the safety factor in this industry and stressed how this has been appreciated over a long period. It has produced a truly remarkable safety record. We should all pay tribute to the record achieved in recent years. This is a complex problem, and it is a complex structure with which we are dealing.
The hon. Member raised the question of finance, and some of my hon. Friends echoed the apparent complexity of the financing arrangements which I outlined. Perhaps they are not so complex as I appeared to suggest, as the Secretary of State for the Social Services will himself fund the board and receive the appropriate contributions from the three other Departments responsible for the sponsoring organisations—the M.R.C., the A.E.A. and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. I am not sure that Scottish colleagues on either side of the House would like those Departments' contributions to be called petty. It is a satisfactory arrangement, at least for the immediate future. It is not a once-for-all solution.
A number of hon. Members made the point that the chairman or other members of the board had been selected and that I should name them. This is not so. It would not be appropriate until the House had considered the Bill. The chairman has not been appointed. Sir Brian Windeyer is acting as chairman of the advisory group which I mentioned. I was asked a linked question about the rôle of the director and whether he would be a full-time or part-time director. This will be a full-time post. I was also asked about the location of the headquarters. I do not think it would be appropriate to make any comment on this because that is the sort of decision which the board has itself to take, and we should not dictate to the board.

Mr. Fortescue: If the board has to decide this—and there is some merit in that—may we have an assurance that before it decides full consultation will

be carried out with those who will be transferred to its service?

Dr. Dunwoody: I will say a word or two about consultation and some aspects of consultation.
I was asked about the hospital film badge monitoring service and its future. This again will be a matter for the board. I do not think any of us wants to dictate to the board but I have no doubt that it will consider the best way of providing a film badge service. There is the possibility that it can provide an automated service, a new facility of service, and undertake work on behalf of the hospitals as the Radiological Protection Society does at present. There would not be objection to the continuation of independent film badge services if these were economic propositions. We are not attempting to dictate to the board what it should do.
The hon. Member for Garston also made reference to allegations which have been made about health hazards in this industry, linking them with particular individuals. Those allegations were repeated by other hon. Members. But I am sure that hon. Members would not expect me to comment on any particular cases which have been raised, although I say to the hon. Member that one cannot accept the analogy of the Christmas Island explosion when talking about particular individual cases. I assure hon. Members that either my colleagues who have responsibility in departmental terms or I will look at any points put forward by hon. Members in this matter.
The hon. Member asked me to ensure that the first task of the research body will be to initiate research into this field. Again, it is important that we should not dictate to the board what its early tasks should be. We want to retain its independence, which is a tradition we value and benefit from very considerably. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. Orbach) suggested that it was possible that one of the disadvantages was that the proposed board would not be completely independent and would be in some way dependent on the Atomic Energy Authority. This is not so. One of the reasons for a statutory board appointed by the Health Ministers is precisely to ensure that degree of independence which we think is essential if the


board is to fulfil its rôle in radiological protection as effectively as it should.
My hon. Friend wanted me to assure him that the consultations would take place with both sides—the A.E.A. and the M.R.C. staffs involved. Consultations have taken place and both sides have been equally consulted.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South emphasised the importance of the quality of the work and the quality of the members of the technical staff, and I endorse what he said. I did not intend in any way, when paying tribute to the outstanding qualities of the scientific staff, to seem to belittle the work done by the technical staff. As my hon. Friend probably knows better than I, it would be impossible for the scientific staff to achieve their very high standards without the first-class and efficient technical staff working with them. We want to keep this happy partnership and develop it more fully.
I have already answered some of the points made by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Captain W. Elliot). He made a number of others that might be better dealt with in Committee. I do not think that this is the appropriate time to go into great detail on them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) doubted whether now was the appropriate time to suggest the changes proposed in the Bill. But one can go on wondering when the time is appropriate; it is never quite the right time. Some people would say that the changes are considerably overdue. As I suggested earlier, they stem from a series of suggestions, reports and activities dating back to the accident at Windscale, and perhaps earlier. If we were to delay a decision even further, the very uncertainty that my hon. Friend alleges may exist would become even more marked. The time has come when we must resolve the problem once and for all, and that is one of the reasons why I am asking hon. Members to support the Bill.
I mentioned consultation in reply to one of the earlier questions. My hon. Friend also made a point about the research activity. I have no doubt that the research activities of the A.E.A. and the

M.R.C. will be looked at by the board together with those two bodies jointly when the board is set up. We must have a co-ordinated approach to research. One of the advantages of the proposals in the Bill is that we shall have a considerable degree of rationalisation and avoid the overlap that is always a possibility when one has organisations working in parallel in such a relatively narrow field.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) rightly emphasised the importance of good staff relations, particularly in an organisation like this where work is often conducted under heavy pressure with considerable strains on the staff at all levels. I am pleased that he did so, because he gives me the opportunity to spell out again, perhaps more clearly, what I said. When I said that the staff and their representative associations would have the opportunity to put their views to the board before transfer, I was trying to emphasise that they would have the opportunity of doing this before transfer, as well as afterwards, if the transfer is agreed.
I repeat that the board is expected to set up the appropriate machinery for consulting its staff, and I have no doubt that it will do so. The consultative machinery is important, and will have an important rôle to play in the board's successful future that I think we shall see once the Bill is passed. I hope that the reassurances that I have been able to give on the question of consultation will help.
My hon. Friend also talked about this being a one-sided marriage. I cannot accept this, and I certainly cannot pursue his biological analogies—they rather terrified me. I do not think that this is a one-sided marriage, but rather one of willing and eager parties, and the debate has shown that there are many hon. Members on both sides only too pleased to wish them good fortune in the future. I hope that we shall be able to do this by giving the Bill an unopposed Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the establishment of a National Radiological Protection Board and an Advisory Committee, with functions concerning the protection of people from radiation hazards, and for connected purposes, it is expedient to authorize—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be necessary to defray expenses incurred by the National Radiological Protection Board with the approval of the Secretary of State, so far as those expenses exceed any receipts derived from the exercise of the Board's functions and are not met from other sources;
(b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of the whole or any part of any moneys received by the Board in any financial year.—[Dr. John Dun woody.]

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE (SUGAR BEET)

9.25 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): I beg to move.
That the Sugar Beet (Research and Education) (Increase of Contributions) Order 1970 a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.
The purpose of this order is simply to maintain at its present level the maximum contribution which growers of beet and the British Sugar Corporation may be required by order to pay to finance the programme of research and education which the industry wants to see carried out. Under Section 18(1) of the Sugar Act 1956, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State for Scotland make an Order each year setting out a programme of expenditure on research and education for homegrown sugar beet. The Ministers are required by the Act to consult the industry and the established practice is to do this through the Sugar Beet (Research and Education) Committee, comprising representatives of the National Farmers' Unions of England and Wales and Scotland, the British Sugar Corporation and agricultural scientists. The income is raised by Orders made under Section 18(3) of the Act and the con-

tributions from growers and the Corporation are paid into the Sugar Beet (Research and Education) Fund which is under the control of the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The actual rate of contribution is determined annually and is subject to an Order separate from the one under discussion.
The 1956 Act specified that the maximum rate of contribution should be 3d. per ton each from the growers and the Corporation for each ton of home-grown sugar beet sold for delivery to the Corporation in that year. Under Section 18(4) of the Act the maximum rate can be increased by Order. The maximum rate was raised to 4d. per ton in 1967 and this enabled increased contributions to be assessed to meet rising costs of the programmes. The present maximum contribution Order expires on 31st March and without another Order the maximum rate would automatically revert to the 3d. per ton specified in the Act. The actual rate of contribution in force at the present time is 3½d. per ton—giving a likely income of the order of £177,000 against an estimated expenditure on the current programme of £229,000. We are already cutting into the reserves of the Fund to pay for current research. The Sugar Beet (Research and Education) Committee does not contemplate any major expansion of the programme over the next year or so, and has looked closely at current expenditure to see that this is fully justified.
But costs continue to rise and the industry wants the present level of research to be maintained. Under these circumstances the maximum rate of contribution which was considered appropriate when the Act came into force in 1956 would no longer be adequate. The proposal embodied in the Order now before the House is that the present rate of 4d. per ton from the grower and 4d. per ton from the Corporation should be maintained for a further period of two years. We are satisfied that this will meet present needs, but would intend to review the position towards the end of the two years. These proposals do not affect the price of sugar.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: The Order which comes before us tonight is different in one respect from some which we discuss at this time of night. The


original Act was passed in 1956 and I can find only one occasion since then when this topic has been raised in this House. That was when the amount was increased and there was a debate on 1st March, 1967. On that occasion the Parliamentary Secretary's right hon. Friend was asked about the money which was being collected. There seemed to be some anxiety as to where it was actually going. His right hon. Friend gave an assurance that:
Like many organisations, until such time as the money is required it is invested, so that it is interest earning and not lying idle" —[OFFICIAL REPORT: 1st March 1967; Vol. 742, c. 456.]
I listened with care to what the Parliamentary Secretary said a few months ago, but I regret to say I was not quite able to tie it in with the accounts I have for 1968–69 of the Home-Grown Sugar Research and Education Fund. No doubt he will have a better head for explaining these things than I have, but on the balance sheet it appears that there is a sum of £253,509 in local authority loans, and that on the income and expenditure account there was a surplus on the last year of £34,965. Yet the hon. Gentleman was saying, "We are eating into our reserves".
No doubt what he is saying is true, but it is not immediately apparent to me; and others who produce sugar beet may like to have a slightly clearer explanation that has been given to us so far. It appears that the British Sugar Corporation has been left, after tax, with £1,636,228 this year, so there does not seem to be any shortage of funds. In those circumstances, it seems difficult to follow why it is required to keep this levy at this high level.
May I put three other points briefly to the hon. Gentleman? In this report there are 11 items under which research is undertaken. Is he in a position to say a few words about any of those items? For example, as a result of money which is being spent, are the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge or the National Institute of Agricultural Botany producing something of considerable help and assistance to the sugar beet industry? During the last debate there was a reference, among other things, to something called "monogerm seed". Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is familiar with that

and what has been done. I understand that among other things the British Sugar Beet Review is very well received and is read by those in the industry. Is he satisfied that the items of research that are being successful are being communicated to those who are planting and harvesting sugar beet?
May I also ask him whether any consideration has been given to co-operation in this industry? In most aspects of agriculture we find that co-operation plays quite a large part in discussions which take place, but I have not found any reference to it in these debates. Finally, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether he can give any indication of what the trend is as a result of this research? Are yields improving? Are machines being improved to help the industry? Are there other matters that he feels it might be helpful for growers to know? May I say in conclusion how much I regret that my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Gilmour) is not here, because his interest in this matter is well known. He would have been present but for the fact that he is not well.
With those observations, on behalf of hon. Members on this side of the House I support the Order.

Mr. Mackie: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall reply to the debate. I think that on the subject of research itself if the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine) would care to look at the Schedule to the Sugar Beet (Research and Education) Order, 1969, he will see that the Plant Breeding Institute at Cambridge received £55,000; variety trials of the National Institute of Agricultural Botany received £19,000; disease investigations £81,000 and crop husbandry at the Norfolk Agricultural Station, £11,000. I could go on but I do not wish to bore the House and the details are all contained in the Schedule.
As regards the result of research the hon. Gentleman mentioned monogerm seed which is now a reality, and a variety tolerant to virus yellows is now available. This is a tremendous achievement, because virus yellows were a great trouble to sugar beet for a long time. As far as mechanisation is concerned, harvesting operations are now largely


mechanised and hardly any sugar beet is pulled by hand. Monogerm seed and single planting help a lot towards that.
As to the general picture of research, I think that the hon. Gentleman must know that sugar beet has shown an impressive increase in yield from nine tons per acre 25 years ago to about 15 tons in recent years, and there has been a comparable increase in sugar yield. The whole of the increase cannot be attributed to research alone. Much of it is due to general improvement in husbandry standards.
On the question of digging into reserves it is this year's current account which will hit the reserves for research and the hon. Gentleman will realise that this is an Order to keep the maximum contribution at 4d. per ton. Although I did say that costs were rising, the Order for the new contribution will come along in about a fortnight's time. It is simply that we need this money because we do not receive money—as the hon. Gentleman well knows—from the sugar beet growers until much later when the tonnage is counted up and so on. We need to have some reserve to keep up research which is going on all the time.
The hon. Gentleman asked about cooperation. I cannot give him details of actual examples of co-operation, but I should imagine that the small sugar beet growers are taking advantage of the new agricultural and horticultural co-operation scheme to buy machinery. I know that quite a lot of co-operation is going on, although I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any details. Those are the points the hon. Gentleman raised and I hope that the Order will now get the blessing of the House.

Question put and agreed to,

Resolved,
That the Sugar Beet (Research and Education) (Increase of Contributions) Order 1970 a draft of which was laid before this House on 20th January, be approved.

Orders of the Day — PATENTS RULES

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move:
That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Patents (Amendment No. 2) Rules 1969 (S.I., 1969, No. 1706), dated 1st December, 1969, a copy of which was laid before this House on 8th December, be annulled.
This debate is about the Patent Office and the increase in fees proposed in these rules. The history of the matter is that in November, 1967 the Patent Office fees were increased by 6 per cent. to yield about £200,000. In June, 1969—only two years later—they were increased again by a further 6 per cent., yielding about a further £200,000. So it was a matter of considerable surprise that a further order was laid in December 1969—only six months later—to increase the fees by a further 12 per cent. bringing in another £420,000 or more, on top of the increase which took place in June and, in some respects, in April of the same year.
The present rules bring the fees that can be charged under the Statute up to the legal maximum, and that in itself will mean that no further increases can be made without further legislation. As the Government and their subordinate bodies should set an example to others in keeping costs down and in maintaining their productivity increases, I think it is a little surprising on the face of it that a further increase of 12 per cent. in the fees was required at this stage.
I do not blame the Patent Office for wishing to cover its costs. Indeed, it is right that, the non-revenue-earning aspects of the Patent Office work aside, the Patent Office should balance its books. What I criticise the Government for is having allowed an increase to go through in the early part of last year on the assumption that it would last until 1972, and then being proved so wrong in their forecast they have had to come back to the House for more at the end of the same year, six months later.
In December I asked the hon. Lady why that had come to be so, and she replied:
The increases in the fees payable to the Patent Office in respect of patents, designs and trade marks matters that came into operation generally on 21st June, 1969, but in April,


1969 in respect of certain renewal fees paid in advance, were designed on the information available at the time when the relevant estimates of costs were made, to enable the Patent Office to meet the cost of its fee-earning branches over the period of four years from 1969 to 1972 inclusive."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th December 1969; Vol. 793, c. 491.]
I think the hon. Lady should tell us why the estimate made in June of last year was so wildly amiss, because quite clearly to expect an increase to last for four years and then to be told that it has lasted for only six months is not a very satisfactory state of affairs.
In answer to a Question the hon. Lady was good enough to supply me with the increased costs which were not foreseen. They were £150,000 for extra wages. There was a 5 per cent. increase in wages and salaries. But surely that was, on the whole, foreseeable in these inflationary days when everybody is getting 5 per cent., if not more. It surely would be prudent to include a contingency for increased wages.
Second, S.E.T. and increases in National Insurance contributions have added another £51,000 to the annual bill of the Patent Office. These are within the Government's control, and it seems unfortunate that one half of the Government did not tell the other half that it was about to increase S.E.T. These unforeseen reasons added another £201,000 to the annual costs of the Patent Office.
But what about the other £200,000 expenses which are not included in these costs? How came it that in June increases in fees were allowed which were thought to last for four years, and then £200,000 extra expenses were admitted which had not been foreseen but which should have been? Why must we have an extra £200,000 added, for which no explanation has been given?
I think that the handling of this whole matter has not been particularly happy. I do not think that the estimates were made properly on the last occasion when the fees were increased or we would not have been put into this strange position when a large increase is proposed at short notice and within a short interval after the last increase.
As I said, we on this side of the House entirely agree that the Patent Office should cover the full cost of the fee-

earning practice which it provides. Some services which it provides are subsidised directly by the Government, and this is right and proper, and no change is suggested in those arrangements. But it seems curious that the state of affairs should have been allowed to arise in June of last year that no provision was made to cover the obvious increases which were coming at a time when fees were last increased. It is worth reflecting what would have happened if the fees had not been increased on this occasion. The Patent Office would have gone into a pretty serious decline financially, and one wonders how such miscalculations could have been made.
I think it is clear, and I entirely accept, that the fees, even after this round of increased charges by the Patent Office, are not out of line with the basic fees charged by other countries for their patent services. I have a comparative table here, and certainly we are not the cheapest, but, on the other hand, there are a large number of countries—particularly Holland, Norway and Sweden—which are considerably more expensive than we are. The United States, too, is certainly more expensive. Some countries are cheaper, but there can be no complaint from the point of view that the basic level of charges made by the Patent Office is excessive, and that is not part of my case tonight. I have made the first complaint, that there was not proper estimating at the time of the last increase in fees.
The second main point that I want to make concerns consultation. On this occasion there was no consultation whatsoever with the users of the Patent Office, who are, of course, principally the patent agents, about the proposed increase in fees. In the last case, early in 1969, there was some consultation, some warning, and the result was that there was no Prayer in this House against the Order. On the occasion before that, in 1967, there was no consultation again, and the result was that there was a Prayer. So I can tell the hon. Lady that for the very short time which remains to us to be in Opposition there will be a Prayer on every occasion that she increases the Patent Office fees without due consultation and notice.
There are some special factors this time which make it different from the last time Patent Office fees were increased. I would


like to dwell in some detail upon them because I have heard from patent agents that the present method of increasing Patent Office fees is no less than uncivilised and is barbaric in the extreme.
Take, first of all, the sealing fee. This is a fee which is paid when the patent has gone through all its stages of certification and proving and when the inventor is finally told that the patent will be granted. He has a period of four months during which the completed patent is on display, so to speak, to the world at large and during which time he must pay the final or sealing fee if the patent is to become effective.
In this case there was no notice whatsoever, and the sealing fee was increased quite a lot when several thousand patents were awaiting sealing. This has caused the patent agents considerable financial loss because in their contract with the inventor or developer of an invention they undertake to provide the full service, including the sealing fee, at a specified rate, and if in the course of that time the Patent Office increases the sealing fee the patent agents have to meet the increase out of their own pockets. So there has been considerable loss here.
The Patent Office, for some reason, has been unable over the years to devise a system of increasing the sealing fee without causing personal loss to the patent agents, who are, of course, under contract to complete the patents without increase for their clients. So far as I can see, there is no reason why those patents which are before the Patent Office and which have got into the four-month period should not be exempt from increases in the fee. In that case, all new patents which came forward after the date of the announcement of the increase could carry the higher rate whereas all patents which were within their four-month period of inspection could carry the lower rate.
By these means nobody would be penalised, the total amount of new money could be raised, albeit a little more slowly, and there would be none of the bunching of patents; that is to say, the early payment of patent fees, which is the reason given by the Patent Office for behaving in this uncivilised manner. It is perfectly possible to devise a way of increasing the sealing fee, without causing considerably heavier demands upon the

Patent Office staff during the period of an increase, simply by exempting all patents which are within the four-monthly period at the time of the increase. This has been the major complaint about the present round of increases, and it has caused severe financial loss to many patent agents. Perhaps "severe" is too strong a word, but there is no reason why this should not have been done; it is a question of maladministration and was quite unnecessary.
Secondly, I refer to the renewal fees. Eight weeks' notice was given this time that the renewal fees would be increased. In the case of renewal fees which have to be paid each year if a patent is to be renewed, the patent agent writes to his clients at intervals of three months, two months and one month to remind them to pay the renewal fee. The amount of the fee is specified in the reminder. It would save loss to the patent agents if three months' notice were given of a decision to increase the renewal fee.
This would mean that no reminders would be sent out asking for renewal fees which were subsequently increased, the difference having to be paid by the agent. I see no reason why it should not be possible on all occasions to require the Patent Office to give at least three months' notice of its intention to raise renewal fees. That would fit in with the practice in the trade and save hardship and financial loss to the agents.
I am told that nearly always in countries abroad three months' or, sometimes, six months' notice is given when the Patent Office decides to increase fees, and persons with patents in foreign countries have thereby been protected from this small abuse. I do not want to magnify the scale of this. I know that not large sums of money are involved in each individual case, but for a patent agent with several thousand patents it can become a major item of expenditure if he has a fixed contract with his inventor and the fees are increased without warning.
My two points on the sealing fee and the renewal fees are directly attributable to this round of increases. There could have been consultation, there could have been warning, there could have been notice, and ways could have been devised of helping the patent agents over these two problems.
I believe that it is foolish of us to allow our patents to expire after 16 years and for there to be no means of renewal other than by application to the court. Nowadays, with the immense amount of research and development which goes into patents, there is need for an extension of the date of the patent, and many inventors and companies would be happy to pay for it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. I think the hon. Gentleman is now going beyond the scope of the Prayer.

Mr. Ridley: I can demonstrate that this is highly relevant. If you will bear with me for one moment more, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I believe I shall convince you that I was in order in what I was trying to say.
If fees were worked out which would allow patents to have a longer life, with perhaps a £100 a year renewal fee, or even more, many inventors and companies would jump at the opportunity of being able to pay this extra charge to protect their invention for a further period. There is no limitation in international law about the length of time of a patent. It now takes so long to make technological inventions and to do the research into new developments that it is often ten years or more before a patented invention comes on the market and is a commercial success, and it runs out of its patented life after 16 years. Here is another major source of revenue which could be tapped by the Patent Office if the rules were so changed that it could make charges on longer-term patents than the 16-year period.
I would ask the hon. Lady what effect the imposition of S.E.T. has had on the Patent Office. This is one of the major items of cost involved in these new charges. Has the cost of S.E.T. been passed on in this round of fees increases, or has it made an improvement in the efficiency of the Patent Office?
When I visited the Patent Office recently, and I am sorry that the hon. Lady could not join me, I was most impressed by the standard of hard work, knowledge and devotion of all those who work there. What has been the result of this tax which was intended to increase efficiency? It is wrong that we

should be operating only on the revenue side of the Patent Office. There is great scope for mechanising some of the processes, for installing capital equipment which would make the filing and mechanical handling of the patents much more efficient.
I also believe that it is quite wrong to leave the Patent Office in a building which the hon. Lady's predecessor—

Mr. Speaker: Order. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I think that we are talking about an increase in fees for the various patents.

Mr. Ridley: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make the point that one of the reasons why these fees increases are necessary is that insufficient attention has been given to the capital investment. We have now a situation in which the Patent Office is asking for greater and greater fees, whereas many of the answers to its financial problems could be met by a new building and new methods of mechanical handling.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not questioning that they might be met by a new building, but we are now discussing whether the fees should be increased.

Mr. Ridley: I bow to your judgment, Mr. Speaker, but it is very difficult to agree to a set of new fees when one feels that those new fees would not be necessary if other aspects of the work of of the Patent Office were taken into account since the ancient Victorian setup, in the Patent Office, as described by a previous Minister, is, clearly, out of date. I feel that the set-up should be hived off into a new public corporation with responsibility both for the revenue and for the capital side of the account so that value judgments could be made of what is the most efficient way of carrying out the work and what is the most efficient place in which to do it.
The whole way in which the story has unfolded makes me feel that the Government should take a new look at the organisation of the Patent Office as a whole. I understand that one of my hon. Friends has referred the question of these increases to the Parliamentary Commissioner. I do not know whether it has been accepted, but my hon. Friend has accused the Government of maladministration in regard to this round of fees increases.
Although I suppose we shall pass these Rules providing for increases, the occasion should be taken to remark that perhaps the Government should think a little more about the organisation of this whole sphere of activity, which we acknowledge has been well performed, but we feel that the time has come to overhaul the arrangements for running the Patent Office.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The time may have come. It has not come on this Statutory Instrument.

Mr. Ridley: I had concluded my remarks, Mr. Speaker.

10.0 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I want briefly to support my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who has put the case very clearly. My object in intervening in the debate is to deal with a much more limited aspect of the matter and to speak about it rather more in sorrow than in anger.
As my hon. Friend said, there was an extraordinary lack of consultation before this new Statutory Instrument was made, resulting in a surprising addition to the costs involved in a patent application. My object is to make a plea to the Board of Trade for more consultation when increases are proposed in the future.
I am sure that it will be agreed that there is the closest and most amicable co-operation between the Patent Office and the patent agents, whose task is particularly difficult when foreign applications are involved. I am sure, too, that the hon. Lady will agree that it is most important that those who come from abroad and wish to protect their inventions in this country should not be upset. A sudden increase of this kind causes great disturbance when it is introduced without prior consultation, especially when previous increases have been preceded by consultation.
I am anxious not to say anything to cause inconvenience to anyone, but this increase has created great upheaval. I am not engaged in the business of a patent agent but, through my professional work, I have close contacts and friendships with a number of them. No fewer than five or six telephoned me on the one day saying that this increase had come as

a tremendous surprise. In one case, there were some important foreign applications to be made. For some reason, certain of these matters are dealt with in cash. The clerk who went to the Patent Office found that he had not enough money to pay the fee.
That may be regarded as a humorous matter, but it is not right, and I hope that the Government will ensure that there is consultation on future occasions. As I have said, the Patent Office and the patent agents work together in a harmonious and friendly way. Indeed, they could not do their work unless they did. It may be that the Board of Trade does not enjoy such close relationships. I hope that the hon. Lady will try to see that it does.

10.4 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody): This has been an interesting debate because it is, after all, about a very important part of the work of the Board of Trade.
I find it difficult to accept some of the arguments which have been put forward from the benches opposite, and I think that it is wise for me to start by refuting allegations of maladministration and of refusal to understand the situation involved by increasing the patent fees.
If I may just give a little background information, the increases in patents, designs and trade mark fees made in March and April, 1969, were made with the original aim of generating enough income over the period 1969–72 inclusive to cover the costs of the fee-earning branches over that period. The estimates which led to those increases were based on 1967, the only actual figures then available, and envisaged salary increases in 1968 and 1969 of 7 per cent. in each year resulting from a pay settlement in 1968. This settlement was a complicated one, the effect of which varied from one staff establishment to another, according to the distribution of grades and the position of the individual members of those grades on the incremental scales, and of which part only had been negotiated at the time of the estimates. We were forced, there fore, to make assumptions about the remainder, which turned out to be an underestimate, and the full effect became apparent only in the course of 1969. It


was realised—I will give the hon. Gentleman this point—at the time that the Orders were made in March and April, 1969, that there was this degree of underestimation, but it was decided to go ahead with those Orders on the basis that the original hope that the increases would last until 1972 would probably not be realised.
After the Orders had been made, further unforeseen increases incurred in costs. The hon. Gentleman has made much of the fact that these should have been foreseen. However, wages and salaries were increased by 5 per cent. from 1st July, 1969, and this had a consequential effect on superannuation costs. Selective employment tax was increased by the Finance Act, 1969. Although the hon. Gentleman has said that one half of the Government did not know what the other half was doing, I think that he would be the first to complain if the Treasury had given prior notice only to one part of the Government of consequential tax changes. Employers' National Insurance and graduated pensions contributions were also increased with effect from November, 1969.
These increases are estimated to increase the current annual costs of the fee-earning branches by £201,000. It now became clear that the deficit for 1969 for the fee-earning branches would be about £200,000 and that the shortfall on the fees, as raised earlier in the year, was such that an immediate further increase was necessary to maintain the aim to cover costs over the period 1969–72. Since patents account for most of the Office costs, steps were taken to provide for a further increase in patents fees and the Patents (Amendment No. 2) Rules, 1969, were therefore made on 1st December. 1969.
It is still the intention to break even over the period 1969–72. It is estimated that this fees increase, which is limited by the fee ceilings of the Patents (Fees Amendment) Order, 1961, should ensure that costs are covered by income for 1970 probably with some margin to offset loss in 1969. Whether they will continue to be covered for a longer period remains to be seen, but the position will be kept under close review in 1970.
As regards considerations which should influence us when we next consider an

increase of fees, I would only mention the following. First, there is obviously the need to make sure that there is a suitable contingency allowance, having regard to experiences in 1969; secondly, the continuing increase of patents work of the order of 5 per cent. per annum; and, thirdly, the recent welcome successes of the recruiting campaign for examiners—still 8 per cent. under strength—and the need to continue recruiting.
The hon. Gentleman said that S.E.T. was brought in to improve efficiency. This was certainly one of the side aims. The real aim of any Chancellor of the Exchequer who brings in a new tax is to raise money. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Patent Office, far from being over staffed, faces a constant problem of not having trained patent officials capable of doing this highly detailed, skilled and specialised work. One of the constant problems is the need to recruit more people in this sphere. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's remarks cannot be said to imply any suggestion that S.E.T. in itself could have contributed to a greater degree of efficiency of that kind. Far from getting rid of people, in this instance the Office is constantly looking for more skilled staff—

Mr. Ridley: Mr. Ridley rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Whether it could contribute to efficiency is a matter for argument. We are talking about raising certain fees. I hope that the Minister and the Opposition will speak about the Statutory Instrument itself.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.
I will go on to other points raised by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) and by the right hon. and learned Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald). First, on the lack of prior consultation, they said that interested organisations, such as the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents, were not, as they had been on previous occasions, consulted about the increases in fees before the Order was made. The amount of revenue needed left no room for choice as to which patents fees should be increased or by how much. All the main revenue-producing fees which remained below the maximum prescribed by Parliament had to be raised


to the maxima. In these circumstances consultation does not become consultation, and although I accept that this may in many cases—

Mr. Ridley: It is dictation.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I will not accept that it is dictation, because the House has a right to expect the Patent Office to balance its books. There is no point in expecting this of them, if we are not prepared to say that when it faces an immediate crisis it will not have the right to raise its fees to the maxima prescribed by Parliament—

Mr. Ridley: Would the hon. Lady counsel a company in the private sector to increase its prices by 6 per cent. in June and by 12 per cent in December in the same year? Is that within the Government's prices and incomes policy?

Mrs. Dunwoody: The Government's prices and incomes policy takes into account the fact that companies will do everything they can to absorb costs. But the hon. Gentleman himself said that this is a highly skilled service which we provide for the community. It is therefore essential that it should be paid for at an economic rate without subsidy from the taxpayer. This is a point worth emphasising.
Because costs were currently exceeding income, it was necessary to act without delay. This must be underlined. Consultation would have meant a longer lapse of time before the fees could have been raised. These exceptional circumstances demanded exceptional action and in future there is every intention to consult the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents.
But the criticism of hon. Members opposite that patent agents were given no notice of the increase in fees is one which I should like to answer. It is claimed that because of this, patent agents are involved either in the administrative difficulty of notifying clients, particularly those overseas, who may have been quoted at the previous rate of the need for additional payments, or of bearing the increase themselves. In fact, although the order came into operation on the day after it was laid before Parliament and published, the effect of paragraph 4 of the order is to give nearly two months' notice of the increased renewal fees by making

them payable only in respect of years beginning after the 31st January 1970.
I am puzzled why patent agents feel that they should have to pay the increase themselves. Surely their clients know that fees are liable to rise, and that this increase falls to be paid by the client rather than by the agent.

Mr. Ridley: Perhaps I can help the hon. Lady. The reason is that they circulate their clients three months before the fee is due and they state the amount of the fee in that circular—so if, two months before the fee is due, it is increased, they must stand the difference themselves.

Mrs. Dunwoody: But the hon. Gentleman will also have taken into account the fact that I am saying that the eight weeks' notice which is given of renewal fees is almost exactly the same notice as was given before. The reason for bringing all the increases into operation as soon as possible is very simple. Costs were currently substantially exceeding income. Apart from the obvious need to rectify this position without delay, there is also the consideration that current costs should be borne by current users as nearly as possible.
In the case of the sealing fee, about which the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury waxed most eloquent, which after all is the focus of these complaints, there was an additional reason. As the hon. Member said, this fee can be paid at any time after application for a patent, and when the Board of Trade last increased it, in 1955, we gave three months' notice. He has said that the failure to do so now has made us uncivilised, barbaric and bad administrators.
When the Board of Trade gave three months' notice, this resulted in the payment of some 30,000 sealing fees during that three months period, and the full numbers received in each whole year, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956, were 16,899, 19,825, 49,979, and 7,984 respectively, with the consequence that not only was there a considerable loss of revenue but much time and labour had to be expended in refunding sealing fees on those applications which had not proceeded to grant.
The handling and storage of this concentrated mass of applications raised


administrative problems. There appeared to be no way of avoiding a repetition of this occurrence if we gave notice of the increase. These are the reasons why the increase in the sealing fee and the fee on filing a complete specification came into force straightaway.
It was recognised, with considerable regret, that patent agents would suffer some administrative inconvenience as a result; but the likely alternative—a spate of advance payments at the old rate—seemed also likely to carry with it great administrative problems apart from a disproportionate loss of revenue.
Everything possible was done on the publication of the order to draw it to all patent agents' attention. Each of the organisations representing industry and practitioners who are normally consulted on patent matters received letters, on that day, from the Comptroller-General of Patents explaining the increase, and an information slip was sent by the Patent Office to each firm of Patent Agents practising before the Office.
It has been represented that steps could have been taken to mitigate the inconvenience to patent agents by framing the order differently. We could not at the time think of any way of doing so which was free of other objections. The Comtroller-General has, however, invited the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents to discuss whether any satisfactory way of mitigating the inconvenience can be devised for adoption if and when another fee increase of this sort has to be made.
No applicant for a patent will suffer loss of rights by reason of having paid a fee lower than that prescribed by the order, provided that, in a reasonable period, he pays the difference. If he prefers to withdraw his application, he can do so and the money already paid will be refunded to him.
The Patent Office is a very efficient set-up that is facing a continual rise in

the amount of work that it must deal with each year, and this is bound to create for it certain administrative problems.
The debate was taken much wider than this by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I have no desire to go into all the points that were raised, many of which had little to do with the Instrument.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady must not reflect on my predecessor in the Chair.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I apologise, Mr. Speaker.
Many of the points made by hon. Gentlemen opposite would call for a much wider examination of the entire problems of the Patent Office, and this we shall undoubtedly undertake. This is an efficient unit and I was glad that tribute was paid to it. It is providing a useful and specialised service and I hope that it will continue to do so as successfully in the future as it has done in the past.

Question put and negatived.

CONVEYANCING AND FEUDAL REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Bill referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.—[Mr. Buchan.]

BUILDING (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put (pursuant to Standing Order No. 62 (Public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland)), That the Bill be committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.—[Mr. Buchan.]

Question agreed to.

Bill (deemed to have been read a Second time) committed to a Scottish Standing Committee.

Orders of the Day — PEAK DISTRICT NATIONAL PARK

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ernest G. Perry.]

10.19 p.m.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson (The High Peak): The matter I wish to bring to the attention of the House tonight concerns the proposed extensions of the Peak District National Park. One of the first letters that I wrote on being elected to this House was on this subject. That was in May, 1966. I suspect that I shall be writing letters to the Minister after a date in 1971 when, I believe, I shall cease to be an hon. Member.
It is hardly surprising that I have sought leave to raise this matter on the Adjournment. It has taken five years to resolve. In fact, it has not been resolved; but then perhaps I should qualify that statement: it has taken five years so far and has still not been resolved.
As my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will know, the proposed extensions were first brought to his attention by the Voluntary Joint Committee for the Peak District National Park in the autumn of 1965. The proposals were to the effect that the park boundaries, which were designated in the early fifties, should be extended in respect of 16 areas. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend to some facts which no doubt he already knows. These areas would have been within the park boundaries had the original proposals put forward by the Joint Voluntary Committee been accepted, but, due to very considerable objections from the mineral working industry, the interests concerned decided that it would be wise to make certain modifications, and this was done.
I think it proper to remind my hon. Friend of one or two salient facts. The Peak District is very near heavily populated industrial areas, the conurbation of Stockport and Manchester in the West, Rotherham and Sheffield in the East, and Derby and Nottingham in the south. Because of its proximity to these communities it has special recreational value. On the last count, which admittedly is three years old, it received over 4 million day visitors. Yet it is a very small park in comparison with others. My hon.

Friend should take note of these figures. It has 542 square miles, and in comparison with other national parks it is rather small. The Lake District has 866 square miles and Snowdonia has 845 square miles.
The Chairman of the Voluntary Joint Committee wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Willey), the then Minister for Land and Natural Resources, on 4th October, 1965, to press the claims made in his committee's report. Because it shows the significance of these proposals, I will quote from one paragraph of the letter. Hon. Members should note the date, 5th October, 1965. The letter said:
There are large areas of relatively wild and beautiful countryside contiguous with the present boundaries of the Park which are being spoiled by unsuitable development. One of these areas contains the famous climbing areas of Harboro' and Rainster Rocks which should have been included in the first place. This area is about to be spoiled by the opening of a large magnesium quarry. Another area on the north-east containing a fine stretch of moorland around Mid Hopestones has been invaded by a big extension of Messrs. Samuel Fox and Company Ltd., of the United Steel Company Group. This same area is also threatened by unsuitable urban development from Stocks-bridge. The other areas which we have suggested for incorporation in the National Park are in one way or another subjected to dangers of this kind.
The threat was a very real one, and one would have hoped that prompt action would have been taken.
The letter was acknowledged by the Minister's assistant secretary. On 9th April, Lord Strang, then Chairman of the National Parks Commission, wrote acknowledging communications of 23rd November 1965, and assuring Mr. Thompson, the chairman, that the matter would be brought to the attention of the commission.
The next letter from which I quote was from the Minister to Mr. Thompson. In the meantime the Minister had had an opportunity to consider the proposals. Again the date should be noted, 6th December, 1965. The letter said:
I have read your carefully prepared report with the greatest interest and I find myself in sympathy with many of your objectives. You will, no doubt, be aware of the content of my speech to 'the Countryside in 1970' Conference in which I outlined the Government's proposals for the countryside. Many of these proposals are designed to combat the problems


which are giving you concern, including pressure on recreational facilities in National Parks, congestion of the road systems within parks and deterioration of the landscape.
My right hon. Friend concluded:
I have found the concern and interest for the future of the National Parks and the countryside, which your report displays, most encouraging and I am grateful for the great amount of work on the part of your Committee which it represents.
On 9th May, 1966—we are making a little progress—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, then Minister of Housing and Local Government, wrote to Lieutenant-Colonel Gerald Haythornthwaite acknowledging a communication from him on the matter:
I hope that the National Parks Commission will report on your Committee's proposals for enlarging the Park very soon now.
I emphasise those last three words. The Commission took rather a long time to make its inspection, which was carried out on 11th and 12th October, 1966. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North made an informal visit to the Park later in the year.
Several months were taken by the Commission to visit the area. Its secretary wrote to the Clerk of the Peak Park Planning Board making certain preliminary observations following the visit. It was not in complete sympathy with all the proposals, but it had great sympathy for many of them. The commissioners said:

"(1) They consider that the period of fifteen years, elapsed since designation, justifies in principle a reappraisal of the boundaries of the National Park. Of the changes proposed, they think that
"(2) on the western side there are parts of the proposed extension which might well prove acceptable as bringing into the National Park stretches of countryside homogeneous in character with that already included.
"(3) On the southern side, the country proposed for inclusion does not appeal to hold out the same intrinsic justifications, but there might nevertheless be a case for extension of the boundary in some parts so as to bring into play the recreational provision thus entailed."
I quote that to indicate that, while the National Parks Commission had certain reservations, it was in general sympathy with the proposal.
The next communication to which I wish to draw attention is a letter to me

from my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North, dated 8th May 1967, in reply to a note I sent him inquiring what progress he was making. He said:
As you realise, these inspections and consultations are inevitably time-consuming, but we are making steady progress.
Steady progress indeed! We are now in 1970.
The next letter was one to me from my hon. Friend who is to reply to the debate. In this letter, dated 23rd April, 1968, my hon. Friend informed me that the informal consultations had been completed, and wrote:
…steady progress is being made but a good deal of work remains to be done and it would be unrealistic to give you an assurance that an early decision might be expected.
That is a very cautious comment, and in view of what has happened subsequently I can perhaps understand that my hon. Friend should reply in those terms.
I pressed my hon. Friend on the matter again, and on 14th May he wrote:
While we shall certainly do all we can to expedite the necessary consultations, we cannot hope to take the final decision in this matter for some time yet.
This matter has been before the Ministry for nearly five years, and I think that I have been very patient. My hon. Friend said in a manuscript addition to his letter:
I am sorry, but I will expedite the matter as far as I can.
He has been singularly unsuccessful. I greatly regret that.
The last letter which I wish to quote is one from my hon. Friend to Colonel Haythornthwaite dated 4th December, 1969, saying:
It will not be long before I can let you know what I have decided to do, and I will write again then.
Colonel Haythornthwaite, having received that letter, presumed, perhaps naïvely, that decision was imminent. When the contents of the letter were brought to my attention, I thought that within a month or two we should have a decision. On seeing the terms of an answer to a Question I tabled on 3rd February of this year, I knew that a decision was not imminent. My hon. Friend said that he would write to the Voluntary Joint Committee shortly. There was no commitment as to when a decision would be taken. It is very easy to write, but when


my hon. Friend writes I suspect that he will have nothing helpful to say.
It would be churlish of me to take my hon. Friend to task. I suspect that he is not individually responsible for this matter. I certainly hope he is not. Nevertheless, I should like him to draw the attention of those responsible to one or two rather perceptive comments which the Prime Minister made in Swansea on 10th January of this year. The Prime Minister was talking of the countryside and of the successive generations of industry which have systematically—or, rather, unsystematically—despoiled or defiled it. Later in his speech, when referring to the polluters, to the men who resisted the extension of boundaries, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this:
The polluters are powerful and organised. They can point not only to profits, but the short-run interests of the consumers of their products. The protesters, the anti-pollution lobby, are less organised, less powerful. Therefore, the community must step in to redress the balance.
This is what I have been pressing for, and I hope that action will be taken.
My friends in the High Peak, members of the committee, are getting rather fed up. They remember the speeches which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and the rest of us made in which we talked about purposive and dynamic government. They wonder whether this is an example of purposive and dynamic government. Proposals submitted in 1965 are still awaiting a decision. I hardly think that my hon. Friend would claim that this matter would fall into that category.
Finally, my hon. Friend chaired an excellent committee on public participation in the planning process. This is an early example of public participation in the planning process and my hon. Friend is not doing his cause and my cause much credit by not expediting these proposals, to which much care and attention were given and on which the Joint Voluntary Committee was congratulated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, North.
The delay is causing great concern. Before the Peak Park Planning Board decides on the location of country parks, the boundaries of the park must be fixed. I should like my hon. Friend to give

immediate attention to this question. I hope that he will not say that this matter is to be deferred until we make changes in local government.

10.35 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Arthur Skeffington): I should like to begin by saying that my hon. Friend the Member for the High Peak (Mr. Peter M. Jackson) and other hon. Members have been extremely patient about the length of time that the matter of the extension of the Peak District National Park has been under consideration. I must admit that it has taken far too long, and I shall certainly not attempt to justify the time. I hope that I may give some brief explanation of how some of the time has been consumed. In part, it is due to the procedure itself, but there is no doubt that the matter should have been settled long before now. As far as I can, I hope to be in a position to see that never again when there is a case of this character will so much time elapse.
May I briefly put the matter into perspective. I begin by referring, as did my hon. Friend, to the most interesting and well worked-out proposals put forward by the Voluntary Joint Committee. They were of some magnitude. The area of this national park is small—some 542 square miles. The Voluntary Committee's suggestions would mean adding no fewer than 16 new areas, totalling 110 square miles—a substantial addition.
The committee believed that these areas should be added partly because they contained landscape of high quality and partly because this would bring some relief to this small but heavily used park. Here we come up against the first of the procedural points. When a national park is to be designated, the Countryside Commission, or, in the old days, the National Parks Commission, undertakes the inquiries, prepares the order and sends it to my right hon. Friend for confirmation. Under Section 7 of the 1949 Act, for some reason which is not clear to me, when there is an extension it has to be incorporated in an order prepared by my right hon. Friend and not by the National Parks Commission or the Countryside Commission. This means that my right hon. Friend and his staff


have to do this work, which is time consuming. They have to have consultations, and, if there are objections, there may have to be a local inquiry. We must certainly consider for the future whether we ought not to standardise the procedure in order to save time. That would require legislation, and I am not certain when it will be possible to do something about it.
However, in this matter it was necessary when the proposals came forward to have fairly wide consultations. The first reason is that the original boundaries of the Peak area were most carefully delineated by the Hobhouse Committee, and, clearly, all the interests, the Countryside Commission and the local authorities, must be satisfied that the extension, taking all factors into consideration, would be appropriate. That work has been undertaken.
If my hon. Friend thinks that those informal consultations were non-contentious, he is in for a considerable surprise. I do not want to make this an alibi, but part of the time spent in consultations has been used in finding possible ways round some of the difficulties. I hope that that will not be regarded as a waste of time.
These informal consultations with the Countryside Commission, the Peak Planning Committee itself and other bodies have taken place, and other consultations with the local authorities have followed.
Here again there was great delay before we were able to follow up with these authorities. I must point out that perhaps we are all in a sense to blame for this. We have never had, although the position is now vastly improved, the staff to do all the work and meet the new obligations that we have been putting on the Countryside Commission and the Department. I can remember my surprise when I found that in the Ministry of Housing in 1965 there was a fraction of a person allocated to looking after the whole of the considerations of our coastline. When this was started the staff of the commission was very small. It

is much better now. I personally hope that in this European Conservation Year it may be possible to strengthen the staff. I know that the chairman would welcome this.
We are now in the position of having had all the informal consultations. If my right hon. Friend is able to go ahead he will have to consult with the other Government Departments. We have done all the consultations with our regional office. When a draft order is published, if there are objections, then an inquiry may have to be held.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson: Could my hon. Friend be more specific in giving a timetable? Will it happen this year? Will these further consultations which have to be held with other Departments take place some time in the 1970s?

Mr. Skeffington: I can assure my hon. Friend that having gone through all the informal consultations, having gone through our departmental structure, the Countryside Commission and so forth, the next stage with the other Departments should not take long. We are almost in a position, if the Minister desires to act in this way, to go ahead. In the meantime my hon. Friend will be glad to know that, while at one stage the Countryside Act—when it was going through this House—rather put this matter back because it took rather longer in Committee than we expected, although it was perhaps a better Measure as a result, under that Act some helpful action has been taken.
I am glad to say that the Elvaston Castle County Park will be opened in the spring. I said in a letter to my hon. Friend on 3rd February that my right hon. Friend hoped to write to the Joint Parks Committee soon. I fully understand my hon. Friend's justified impatience and have not attempted to make excuses. I simply emphasise that we are at last seeing some action.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.